To Corey Bean You say: I say put you dukes up! Show us what you've got! Me: Corey, on my three web sites alone I’ve got in excess of 350 MB of material available for public viewing (there’s even more stuff than that, put not made available yet), clips and still images and more. On top of that, there’s what is available in the AWN Showcase, and on several other sites, including museums’. It’s perfectly all right to not like what I am showing, but don’t act as if I did not have anything to show! I always put my work where my mouth is, even if at times, I have to remove my foot first!

To Chris Lanier You say: I'd say again, you have many good points, but have somewhat undermined yourself by painting with too broad a brush (not neccessarily fatal on a canvas, but in rhetoric, it's a kind of sin). Are you trying to out-Godard Godard? His brand of anti-Americanism is the sort that makes me ashamed to be an anti-American. Me: You should be ashamed of being ashamed of being an anti-American! This is tongue-in-cheek as well, but there is some truth to the expression that, replying to “My country, right or wrong” says: “My country, when right, kept right. When wrong, made right!” My approach is indeed broad, and this for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that I am not a writer. One very interesting thing worth noting: the comments made publicly her are less than half of all the comments I have received. Most of the supportive comments are from Europe, almost all the negative ones are from North America! I find that fascinating. You: while I'd agree that the big "culture industry" in America is a generally detrimental influence in world culture, America has also produced some of the most vibrant culture the world has seen. Me: I totally agree with you here, most of my heroes in painting are American, with the exception of my favorite artist being Alberto Giacometti. You: Your choice of "Amelie" as an exemplar of non-hollywood film-making has already been greeted with a certain amount of puzzlement (I haven't seen it yet, so I can't offer my own opinion, but it was widely criticized in the US as being too treacly and sentimental, afflicted with a need to be adored. Me: I ain't backing down on this one, something in that movie is moving me so very deeply, and not just sentimentally (though I was a sucker for “An American in Paris” and even “West Side Story” thought this latter one did not fare a well for me in time as the former did). Amélie seems tot talk to me in such a strange way, the first time I saw it was as if I had already seen it, but not in any cliché predictable way, more as if the mind of the director and mine were on a similar “plane.” As I said earlier, only “8 1/2” managed to do that to me in the world of movies so far. You: But it should also be pointed out that the reason it lost the Oscar for best foreign film (and does anyone thinks the Oscars get anything right more than 5% of the time anyway?), is because the Croatian film "No Man's Land" won -- again, I haven't seen this film yet (though I intend to), but its win over "Amelie" was a surprise, as it's considered a far less "audience-pleasing" film -- it's a black comedy that delves into the absurdity of the Balkan conflict, and by most accounts it's very tough-minded, sharp, and uncompromising -- that is to say, the opposite of what gets pegged as "Hollywood fare." Me: I am not sure I agree with this here, it seems to me that the darkness of “No Man’s Land” fits better in the American Weltanschauung then the light of Amélie. I have only seen excerpts from “No Man’s Land” so far so I can’t say much more about it either. You: That said, it's surprising how violently some people have reacted to what you've said Me: I was rather surprised too! Me: In parting, I'll say you also have to acquaint yourself with some Japanese animation (and here again, you come off somewhat high-handed, while at the same time you admit you know very little on the subject!). There, especially in the work of Studio Ghibli, I think you'll find plenty of narrative animation that's quite open to those touches of "poetry." Me: Given a chance, I sure will do that, outside of the Ottawa festivals, there is very little else I have access to in my area (could be a hell of a lot worse!).. You: There's more to say -- I think you're quite right that much animation follows the idea of a literary "story" to its detriment, giving up its more natural storytelling domain, that of the visual (the logic of the text as opposed to the logic of the eye). Me: Exactly! And you have a key to my “position” here, not being an animator (in the story-telling-character-animation sense) nor a film maker (in any sense), my approach to this is, above all, focused on the visual! Not to rub it in, but visually, most work of animation is pathetic! You: Anyway, looking forward to seeing you develop your argument -- hopefully with some better-chosen examples next time... Me: Next time should be very mellow and even boring, it will be all about drawing, without knowing! You: Thanks for taking the time to reply to so many comments, too -- AWN should pay you double for the articles they publish, since you usually end up writing just as much on the "comments" board. Me: Heather, do you copy that?

Hey Chris, It's nice when you put your mouth where your mouth is! ;-)

Oh GOD! Why?! Invader ZIM is the ONLY good show on Nick! All the others are so exuberently gay! The saddest thing is that ZIM comes on after the gayest show of them all! I'm lucky I don't shoot myself while that show is playing, only thing holding me back is the knowledge that Invader ZIM is on after it! *sigh* Well, tis too bad you can't do all the things you do in yer comics to ZIM. Nick is so censored! They should change the censorship at the ZIM time slot! Yes! PERFECT! ALL THE PROBLEMS OF THE WORLD WILL BE SOLVED!!! WE WILL ALL LIVE IN PEACE AND HARMONY IF THE CENSORSHIP IS CHANGED!! HAHAHAHAHA!!! INSANITY!!!!!! Ahem...sorry, I guess your comics had a bigger influence on me then I had anticipated...heh-heh... But seriously, if Nickelodean were a person, I'd tie him up to a chair and flick him. Yes, flick him many, many times... Would you join me? Together, we'd be an unstoppabled flicky force!!! Nevermind, yer too busy. Though it would be so very fun! Oh well, guess it can't be help. -Later (PS: Don't stop writing comics! Keep writing until the end of your life!!!)

Excellent article. Very informative, respectful to the band's creators and well illustrated. Hats up! A Gorillaz fan.

First let me say that after my last posting and having noe of what I felt were my key point's adressed I had resolved not to post again just write you off as a pomus french "man" the natural resalt of a gean pool based in legal prostitution but reading The poasting where you copaired this Jew to a Nazi? No mater how distant you mean the comparison, it was not rite, period. But wile my bile is still up let me get a couple of thing's off my chest. we all respond to this guy as an equal a felo animater, that is a mistake he has no exeriance as an animater he is a Gallery worker and a painting Teacher. He talk's about a muny driven holly wood when he was all to happy to take 60% 70% of the profet's away from some starving painter's sail. For what ? at hull for one nite, maby a baroed tux , free shrimp for a nite? And a Teacher, dont get me rong some of the best of us are teacher's But a teacher never has to put up with recruter's tell you that you did fit into a corporate culture , never had an agent put you on hold for an hower , never had a to have the old lady giving out free sample's dead eye you caws you had been by ten time's that day. He for all I know hasent dune a single walk cycle . Yet still feal's empowered to tell all of us that we should reject any job we feal douse not live up to ower intelectual standard's ? as if they will not simply just give the job to some one elce, so what douse he think is the ancer ? should we organise to the point where the animation comunity can grind the movie industry to a hult at a wim. to turn the entier animation industry into the over beurocrasied economic Icon that is the french economy , oh that's rite france is a second world country ! In the end a super union would fail to further the artistic eather for the same reson that govern ment baised funding would fail that reason being prick's like you would be at the helm this time not just backed up bye a cheesy artical but a budget and burocracy . Ps. Shut up about Amile, the stuck up Art history major I was dating at the time it came out her self called it " pretinsious eye candy " if you want a much better movie with a good back ground by far superior charictor development and a much less perdictable ending I personaly sujest Friday. and further more I believe that Fite club was the most powerfull and most intricate charictor study in a couple of of generation's this being said I do not see the point of french cultere any more maby it should be dismantled and chanaled in to more pruductive activitie's .

To Bernardo Santos You say: I don’t think narrativeness (not sure if the word exists) is the key problem, rather the lack of creator->public relationship that exists in most artistic expression, but in commercial animation seems to have taken the day off. I mean, in art (maybe I conceive it wrongly) the point is for the artist to transmit something of himself onto the rest of the world. Me: Bernardo, these are important points, and you seem to hint at something that struck me in “Amélie” (the original French version): the relationship between the creator and its audience is a key here, and that movie has, in my opinion, opened totally new doors. I almost agree with your saying that the artist is trying to “transmit something of himself onto the rest of the world,” but I differ in this respect: it is not so much a matter of transmission as it is one of uncovering. Having been around art schools for far too long, I can see that placing the emphasis on “expression” often results in having people say loudly very hollow things. “Art is what makes me see” is a bit closer to what it is, for me, all about. And, if indeed there is something universal in the particular, when “I” see, “we” all do too! In that sense, most commercial animation is like a parasite, it isn’t about uncovering anything in the particular, sharing it with the rest of us, it is apparently mostly interested in rehashing the same old things in order to once again make a box office hit. Taking, not contributing. You: Even minimal art aims at expression, the artist always aims at showing something to somebody although there might not be a lot of those “somebody”’s out there. Me: The “somebody” that matters the most in the act of creation is the doer, and the observer in him/her. If what one does really connects with oneself, it is bound to also connect with (some) others. As T.S Eliot would say, “the rest isn’t our business.” You: In animation, he (the artist) may choose to do so visually or narratively, normally both. Pierre Hebert has both non-linear/abstract/visual films, but he also has narrative films, although in some respects the visual complexity of his first films has something to do with the narrative density (structure-wise) of his first narrative films. The fact is that interesting films are being made in an environment (auteur animation) that seems to be limiting itself more and more. What you suggest by criticizing narrative/story-telling seems to limit it further. Me: Good points, and Pierre Hébert’s works are definitely amongst the few I would have liked to use to illustrate my articles with (unfortunately it is not possible). Some of Pierre’s recent work can also be seen as one that is above all like a “ritual,” during which he acts like a “high priest” surrounded by the faithful. The “performance” angle seems very important in it. (I remember he was in Portugal fairly recently, did you see his lectures there?) My criticism of narrative animation is, as I realized in an earlier reply, much more one that criticizes a terrible lack of poetry, and a sickly reliance on linear form, than it was/is a critique of narrative animation per se. You: I think what we all should be thinking about is how to acknowledge this situation (lack of public for animation shorts) and try to revert it. Maybe using the means big studios have for feeding the crap to the world but then feeding them more “challenging” films (on a principal, I don’t like to use “good” or “bad”), maybe infiltrating distribution channels, who knows? Me: This sounds very similar to ideas some of my friends had when we were rewriting the world in May ‘68. Most of those who “infiltrated the system to change it from within” were assimilated. I feel it is a lot better to focus on one’s work, every time one of us connects wit his/her little music, we all gain a great deal. You: Concluding, I feel reluctant in calling animation an art form, although I perceive a lot of animated films as art. Maybe because all moving image started only a while ago and creating new art forms along with the ones that have existed for so long(painting, sculpting, theatre, etc) strikes me as odd. Me: My take on that is very different: animation, like any other form of art, comes from the one mind, ours. I find that what “works” is much more a result of the attitude the work was made under than as a result of one particular technique or art ‘form.” That being said, so much work in animation today belongs to the realm of “plumbing” (no offense meant to plumbers). not to the one of art. The whole point of undergoing a creative journey as one of “self discovery” (what ‘self” is a question though) is missing, the point of taking risks for the sake of an even slight progress in the unfolding of what “we” are is almost totally absent. You: But yes, I do like telling stories, is there anything wrong with me? Me: No one has the right to answer that question for you, no one! That being said, I really and honestly doubt there’s anything wrong with you. But don’t take my word for it, find out for yourself, by doing animation.

I used to complain a lot about the state of animation, music, movies, blah... Then one day my brother said something to me: "Instead of complaining, why don't you just create something better?" He's got a point. I say put you dukes up! Show us what you've got! There's way too much whining going on and not enough animating. And on that note: I don't think painters should speak so loud on animation; indeed it's all the "outsiders" (say the moneymen...) who are causing a lot of animations current problems. I also think that using a non-animated film as your main example is a little off base. And-! Go to France, turn on the television, and tell me what kind of cartoons you see... well? All I can say is I'm tired of everyone trying to talk hardcore. Put up a animated film that moves me and then talk. I'm not defending the sad state of animation (and not just in America...) I'm just saying that I'd rather watch good films than complain (or listen to someone complain) about bad ones.

Awesome- how is it that you can illustrate some of the same concepts as the current "notes from the underground" and not sound so offensively correct? Why do I not feel guilty for agreeing with you? Maybe its all in the presentation...........

The piece seems to undermine itself a little by holding up Amélie as being a artful, good example of great french cinema, its just isn't , its not bad entertainment, but its no way an 'art' film. i don't think it is intended to be either. PS painting is 6000 years plus old, animation is say 200 years (or so) old, its got a long way to go yet. If you look at how painting has developed over that period, it hasn't come so far, so quickly. Anyway good piece.

While I agree with you in many respects, there are a few points in which I differ, and for the sake of constructive arguing, I'll try to make them clear (forgive me if I don't). I'm 18 and study in a course that not being dedicated to animation is related to the moving image side of things as a whole. The animation classes were oriented by Abi Feijó ("os salteadores", "clandestino") and although i am presently undertaking those classes i have been animating (mostly stop-motion) for two years. Knowing Abi from his studio and a few workshops he oriented i got a chance to know a few "auteur" films, mostly eastern European or NFB productions. That broadened my scope which was somewhat limited to aardman films, and not even the best ones. You seem to point out the last 20/25 years of animation as relatively stale, content and visually-wise. Yes, McLaren is dead, but a lot of people were inspired by him and found their own expression. Ryan Larkin, Caroline Leaf, Pierre Hebert are of an older generation than mine but all have created interesting films that leave a lot for the audience to figure out, moving away from entertainment as you rightly (I think) criticize it. However, not only from Canada, and not only from older people, we have seen a great deal non-in-your-face/brain films. Being Portuguese, I am especially proud of Abi’s work and even more of the effort Regina Pessoa made in her film, “A Noite”. All of them are narrative, but I don’t think that fact diminishes them in any way. While “monk and the fish” is a narrative film, I believe that Michael Dudok left a lot for the audience to figure out. Also Stan Brachages’ non-linear/narrative films are recent. I don’t think narrativeness (not sure if the word exists) is the key problem, rather the lack of creator->public relationship that exists in most artistic expression, but in commercial animation seems to have taken the day off. I mean, in art (maybe I conceive it wrongly) the point is for the artist to transmit something of himself onto the rest of the world. Even minimal art aims at expression, the artist always aims at showing something to somebody although there might not be a lot of those “somebody”’s out there. In animation, he (the artist) may choose to do so visually or narratively, normally both. Pierre Hebert has both non-linear/abstract/visual films, but he also has narrative films, although in some respects the visual complexity of his first films has something to do with the narrative density (structure-wise) of his first narrative films. The fact is that interesting films are being made in an environment (auteur animation) that seems to be limiting itself more and more. What you suggest by criticizing narrative/story-telling seems to limit it further. I think what we all should be thinking about is how to acknowledge this situation (lack of public for animation shorts) and try to revert it. Maybe using the means big studios have for feeding the crap to the world but then feeding them more “challenging” films (on a principal, I don’t like to use “good” or “bad”), maybe infiltrating distribution channels, who knows? I mean this sounds so basic that someone has certainly thought of it/tried it before. In any case I think being coherent and making good films is an obvious step. Getting onto the mainstream (not selling out but giving people better stuff) is starting to get easier, the fad with animated music videos continues. Phil Robinson wrote about Film Teknarka a while ago, I think they are a good example. Concluding, I feel reluctant in calling animation an art form, although I perceive a lot of animated films as art. Maybe because all moving image started only a while ago and creating new art forms along with the ones that have existed for so long(painting, sculpting, theatre, etc) strikes me as odd. And, coming back to the narrative/non-linear issue I would like to say that I work in stop-motion, normally puppets and it is somewhat difficult to avoid story-telling in this technique. Yes Svankmajer and the Brothers Quay (for example) work three-dimensionally and have made non-linear films, but I think you know what I’m trying to say. This doesn’t mean that I don’t try to get as much of what I feel and like across, both on a plastic level and on the way the story is told. But yes, I do like telling stories, is there anything wrong with me?

To James Boty: You say: "The piece seems to undermine itself a little by holding up Amélie as being a artful, good example of great french cinema, its just isn't , its not bad entertainment, but its no why an 'art' film. I don't think it is intended to be either." Me: James, earlier, some people called me “elitist,” and now you are (almost;-) calling me a “low brow.” I stand by my remarks about “Amélie,” this is a movie that has moved me very deeply, and not “just” sentimentally (in any case, what would be wrong with that?) No, the aspect of Amélie that hit me the most is its form, yes, its form. I have to date seen two movies that have had that kind of impact on me as an “artist,” one is Fellini’s "8 1/2," the other is Amélie. There is in this Jeunet film something totally new for me, a way of relating to the audience on many simultaneous levels, like nothing I have ever seen before (it is still too potent for me right now to try to articulate it in public, I want to integrate that through my work first). Amélie is to me a great example of what it is like to find one’s own voice, one’s little music, and next to that kind of honesty and “rightness of tone,” who needs “art?” I only wish I could connect with my own little music with as much success as Jeunet has in this piece before I die. You: PS painting is 6000 years plus old, animation is say 200 years (or so) old, its got a long way to go yet. If you look at how painting has developed over that period, it hasn't come so far, so quickly. Me: Good point, but if I had a deep conviction that the problem with animation (as I see it) had to do with its relatively young age, I doubt I would have come down as hard on it as I have in my article(s). (After all, to translate from a French song: “To treat a baby as an adult is a sure way of killing it.”) No, what I take issue with is the lack of “rightness of tone” and “honest little music” I see in most animation I have seen in the past few years. Mind you, and this is so very important in the context of these articles, I have seen works that really moved me, works that have made it very clear to me that animation is a major art form. (Too bad one can’t have access to clips from those pieces I have liked to illustrate my words.) And as far as painting is concerned, it has been fairly obvious to me that the things that “work” are “things” one sees already in cave paintings, and in moments of our history all the way till now. I see a huge underground link between humans that runs across time, and when this link is intuited, it makes time almost irrelevant. I see traces of that in, for example, Mary Ellen Bute's work.

To Danielle H: You say: ...Detheux seems to be laying the blame entirely on artists... Me: Danielle, I am not sure I meant to lay the blame entirely on artists, but I sure am convinced they are hugely responsible for accepting to do what "they" (many) are doing. Let me take a very extreme example: Nuremberg seemed bent on judging mostly the leaders of that Nazi monstrosity, but, to quote a favorite old line “What if there was a war, and nobody came?” The number of “leaders” is infinitesimal when compared to the number of ants that do their dirty work, “following orders.” “What if there was yet another big dumbing-down production and no animator came?” You: the artists should continue to enter their works in festivals and try to promote visibility for the true Art films. That responsibility is certainly theirs. It seems that the either the executives or the government needs to consider taking responsibility for funding projects that do not merely entertain, but enrich lives and bring the art form to a new level. Me: I’m with you here too, this brings back a bit that notion of ”communal responsibility” that we have, each and every one of us, pointing to the possibility (the fact?) that every thing we do impacts on everything and every one else. As for “the executives or the government,” it seems to me that most managers have found it a lot easier to deal with the short term, the “small picture,” thus are not very interested in the broad issues we are talking about here. I find it strange (to say the least) that so many people have to devote more energy on finding the means to do their work, then on the work itself! What a waste to time, talent, and energy! (We all loose in this.) I have mailed several letters to major animation studios managers, suggesting they fund an experimental program that would give out grants to independent animators to support “research” that has no obvious immediate commercial application. (This is very similar to struggling against the tendency in scientific research that sees applied science privileged over “pure” research, ultimately assuring that applied science will eventually run out of ideas). The idea was/is based on providing support for the minimal needs of individuals working with minimal means, not on anything resembling a “production” (hence “minimal”). This would require almost insignificant money, especially by large studios’ standards. My letters have all remained unanswered, not even having been acknowledged! I am personally thrilled to see the coming changes new technologies bring to small time animators/artists. We now are very close to being able to do it all by ourselves and this, at relatively small costs. Both the web and things like Final Cut Pro, FireWire, DV and relatively cheap DVD burners are helping more and more people bypass the control on what’s available exercised by the “big guys.” We may be on the threshold of some major changes, bringing the making of animation closer to what painting has been for a very long time (*relatively* easy to afford even on minimal income).

I like your work im an animator and im so inspired by you thinks guys and good luck.

Author: '"How did the world of animation get invaded by (and succumb to) this domination by the story tellers, especially the invasion of the "one-dimensional-linear-supersimplistic-story tellers?"' Me: The fact is, it never was invaded. It began as another method of telling stories by such people as Winsor McCay (who is considered as the father of animation). On top of that, the earliest animations were founded on "one-dimensional-linear-supersimplistic-story tellers?" To quote Dick Huemer in 1957: "Plots? We never bothered with plots. They were just a series of gags strung together. And not very funny, I'm afraid." Author: 'How is it that this overwhelming invasion of the animation space by the permanently juvenile "escapists" was allowed to take place?' Me: Animation is all about escape. It is a medium that allows us to travel to places that are not real, that are only limited by our imagination. Author: 'Today animation seems to be stuck within the confines of the already known, and to get out of that box, to break down those walls we talked about in Part #1, we need to be able to work without relying on the already known, without necessarily securing our work in the safety of, for example, a story, also freeing ourselves of all that we take for granted about the appearance of the visible world, finally reaching beyond the limitations of "beginning, middle and end" (this applies to not only stories, it applies as well to images).' Me: Such a statement revels how little you know about animation, and where it has gone already. For some reason unknown, you have forgotten to mention the largest animation viewing nation in the world: Japan. The Japanese have been exploring animation far more in depth than any other group of people for a while now. The sheer amount of diversity that can be found (and not just in the small trickle that makes it to the Western shores) is quite startling. Do some indepth research there before you misguidedly throw around comments like yours, and you will see that there are no confines. That the exploration of the animation medium is astounding.

Having read the article through several times now and also the comments above I’d like to add my thoughts. I live in the U.K. where the TV is national and funded by licence regulated by government. We are informed that the service is the best in the world – but they would say that! Anyhow, at least if you stay up late enough you will sometimes see "cutting edge" animation, some of the best of which to my understanding comes from Canada! We also see UK offerings from each year’s latest animation graduates – often a bit too much like moving Lowry paintings with added flicker for my taste. Quirky narrative often, but beyond that disappointing, once you get educated above ‘bog standard.’ My training was in Fine Art, so I am familiar with Jean’s arguments – (so well put across too) – it’s a shame that since college I have been isolated from them. One night a couple of years back they showed work by Mary Ellen Bute, wow! I thought, because you just don’t see that kind of thing often enough, I forgot her name and had to ask around message boards to find out if anyone could help. I thought surely someone on a US art board will know her work – no such luck, it was only through this site that I finally found her again – thanks! Well at least its still out there . . . I saw Shreck recently, it was Okay in that it does what would have taken years to do using traditional methods, but beyond that I felt that I could have done with a better story. Having grown up in the 70’s it wasn’t until I went to college aged 30 that I found out about what art really could / can be. A couple of years ago we had a Cezzane exhibition in London, it was well supported on TV and was a sell out, does this contradict the idea that you need art history to appreciate elitist art and so forth? Well, later we had the sensations exhibition which was also well presented on TV and was also a sell out! Well – the power of telly eh? I also took a course in art history as it happens – on what is called "the Open University" set up by a left wing government – I received financial aid to cover the costs as I was then unemployed. Well politics crops up in discussions, I think Jean was careful to avoid a ‘commie rant’ (my little joke folks – no need to look for that in the text!) At college I was conscious of not developing too far as an individual so that no one understands who I am and where I’m coming from. I opted to go down paths where this would be avoided, I couldn’t see that it would be right to use my loan (we no longer have full state funding here) to do something Just for myself. Now that I’m out of college a few years I do feel that I need to develop work further, for myself, after all – its not My fault your all so dumb! By the way, I have been using a board where people chat about music – when the subject of favourite films came up the taste of mid 30’s chatter’s was often leaning towards films made 40+ years ago. I think this all shows that our generation has had to clamber out of such a pit of Hollywood Mc’garbage – that it takes most of us half our lives to manage to even get a foot on the first rung of a ladder that could have been ascended so much sooner with better funding and education, after all, are we here for the money, or to learn to live and breathe the good clean air?

To Simon Woods: Simon, even Canada, through frantic budget cuts, seems to be on the verge of seeing its National Film Board reduced to a shadow of what it was (I think that may already be the case today actually). It’s so ironic that a state like Canada would spend millions on flags and propaganda, and yet starve one of its most prestigious institutions, an institution that brought the country a great deal of note, far beyond what flags and propaganda ever could. This is another indication of the undermining effect of the commerce agenda, cultural “things” are either mere goods, and/or good for the establishment’s self-glorification, or as some form of “vacation from the harshness of life” with which to keep “the masses” quiet/asleep. As long as cultural “things” are not critical, subversive, and/or, god forbid, meaningful, they will be supported/tolerated. Ever noticed how in history the dictators always have shown impeccable taste for the arts, but in reverse? (They intuitively knew/know which ones to forbid/repress. Invariably, those were/are the better ones.)

To Pigalow Bradle: Pigalow, I agree with you, the means of distribution are changing fast (though I prefer to think of that as “ways of sharing work”). Much change is sure to come from that in the very near future (I am personally on the verge of being able to burn my own DVDs, something I would not have been able to even dream about a few short years ago). Issues of income, family, housing, and means to live and work are not futile, I agree. But so many people “have” all that and “are” nothing. “Are” nothing in the sense that they are not “actualizing their potential” (as I once saw it written) or, to use my words, they are not exploring their own unknown. I personally can’t think of a more important and meaningful thing to do. Why do you equate “non-narrative animation” with “cheap tricks?” I know of a few non-narrative pieces that support being viewed over and over because, and this is important, they are not pre-digested food. They leave a great deal of their appearance to be developed/invented by the viewer (“invented” as in Piaget’s “To understand is to invent”). So much of habitual narrative animation is carried only by a linear story, it often has very little to offer visually, leaving nothing to the viewer's imgination. It’s not so much the narrative I am having problems with, it is the shallow narrative and the lack of poetry and ambiguity that bugs me. You say: “Have you sean waking life yet ? No atack I just want to know your impresion's” Funny you ask. Many people I know are convinced it was made with my very favorite piece of software, “Studio Artist” (from www.synthetik.com). I have serious problems with rotoscoping: I believe Art is all about transposition, and I find rotoscoping lacking almost totally in transposition, completely (or almost completely) relying on the literal. So, in that sense, Waking Life did not work for me, in that sense it is almost form-less. But, I now surrender!. ;-)

To Ryan Grobins: You say: "Animation is all about escape. It is a medium that allows us to travel to places that are not real, that are only limited by our imagination." Me: One must have a firm belief in an “objective reality” to subscribe to your views, positing that “imagination is not real.” I love the attitude of Munchausen, his “refusal to believe that imagination can't be reality” (to quote a dear friend) is really what I consider essential to “make art,” and to enjoy art as well. There is a very very very thin line between creativity, “madness,” and the fallacy of misplaced concreteness (this referring to what most people believe the real to be). You: "Such a statement revels how little you know about animation, and where it has gone already. For some reason unknown, you have forgotten to mention the largest animation viewing nation in the world: Japan. The Japanese have been exploring animation far more in depth than any other group of people for a while now. The sheer amount of diversity that can be found (and not just in the small trickle that makes it to the Western shores) is quite startling. Do some in-depth research there before you misguidedly throw around comments like yours, and you will see that there are no confines." Me: I claim ignorance as far as Japanese animation is concerned. What I have seen of it so far has shown it to be pathetically idiotic and manipulative, sort of a gross caricature of what’s already bad in the West. I’d love to see something better, I do have strong ties with some aspects of the Japanese culture, but those antedate the advent of animation. (That makes me believe that you are likely right, such great culture must have produced better animation than the samples I have seen so far.) You: That the exploration of the animation medium is astounding. Me: I wholeheartedly agree with you.

For most of your article, i have to agree - there is a general trend towards 'Conglomorated Mediocrity' in much of Culture, where the McWorld wins out over independent culturally significant contexts. in this regard, in many instances, there is overwhelming inertia to accept the dominant cultural context. Many people say that there is choice to choose McWorld or Indie Artist - but this would only be true if things were picked from an offering of equal representation - as it is now, they are not - things are not picked out of their popularity, they are completely skewed by millions and millions of dollars poured into MARKETING to skew that level playing field, so popular vote is completely biased, and things of real value (which often are recognised through word-of-mouth and PEER-REVIEW) are often passed-over and marginalised. For example, 'spice girls' (pop tarts?) are not good musicians (how would they fare in a PEER-REVIEW by other practicing musicians?) - they are simply well marketed. i think your point that the view of 'culture as a commodity' is detrimental to the imbuing of MEANING within art is a valid one. so the question arises - how does one allow the worth of individual initiative to thrive when confronted with the need to produce for the public (not the individual) good!? The problem is how to keep the inidividual artistic initiative from becoming wrapped-up in their own little world without being relevant to the public that they serve with the production of their art. this is largely addressed through Social Threefolding - some useful, well thought-through and insightful solutions for the interaction between ART and COMMERCE are outline in that link - check it out. :-) Re: 'you are what you eat' It would be better to say: 'You Are What You THINK'. Best regards from Toronto, john penner - Storm's Journal