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

Before it gets too far out of whack, the NFB problems have less to do with budget cuts then with a thorough lack of creative vision. The problem has been with the people put in charge...and I'd say that in the early 1980s when a bureaucrat rather than an artist was put in charge of the English studio...you could really see the quality of SOME the work begin to go down hill. Certainly the overall decline of state funding along with the opening up of an animation marketplace has changed the way the NFB has to do things...but let's not blame all of it on globalization because that's just wrong.

I find there are many valid points in this article. I heartily agree that animation need not be dumbed down. However, Detheux seems to be laying the blame entirely on artists. It often seems that artists are interested in pushing the envelope and creating fantastic new works of art. It is the people who fund the projects and give the air time that demand a cookie cutter product. Until American pop culture wakes up and realizes the error of its ways, or it dies all together, you will not find executives willing to finance projects with substantial artistic value. Thought it would be lovely if this apparent hole in funding was filled by the government, it seems entirely unlikely that the current administration will allow for funding of cutting edge projects. Yes, 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.

To Chris: You say: "The NFB problems have less to do with budget cuts then with a thorough lack of creative vision. Certainly the overall decline of state funding along with the opening up of an animation marketplace has changed the way the NFB has to do things...but let's not blame all of it on globalization because that's just wrong. Me: Chris, you know much more about the NFB than I do, so I believe you. But here's a quote from an email I recently received from the NFB after I enquired as to why an article of mine they were to publish in March was not yet posted: "The NFB Animation web site, and the site itself will no longer be under the management of the Animation studios. Instead, management of the NFB Animation site will fall to a newly-created Internet team, under the auspices of NFB Corporate Communications and Outreach." Chris, "NFB Corporate Communications and Outreach" sounds awfully like "Globalization speak" don't you think?

To John Penner: John, I think you bring up something important, something that I overlooked a bit in my article: marketing or, as you say, MARKETING. Indeed, we often are not choosing from what is, we are choosing from only that which we are allowed to see/present. And most of the time, our gaze is also being directed, conditioned. :Spice Girls” as “Pop Tarts” is very nice, I will try that one on my teenage daughter (from a safe distance;-). When you say: “The problem is how to keep the individual 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,” I feel that you are giving too little value to what constitutes our personal interest. What I mean is that there may be (I believe there is) something universal in our particular interest, in our particular experience. If that is so, it is only the quality of the form of the work done in (pseudo) isolation that will determine its worth on a more universal/societal scale, not whether or not it was done in isolation (in a real sense,we are a lot closer to one another than we may often realize). In any case, how could genuine isolation be possible nowadays?

wow.

To Chris (Robinson): You said: “Gee...I gotta read this again, but my first impression is that this is just an outdated elitist longing for a world that once was.” Me: Chris, what is so strange about that? Isn’t Art itself a way we have to look for our forgotten world, our forgotten self? Trust your first impression, it *is* elitist. If being an elitist means being concerned with Quality, and not to be afraid of going one’s own way singing one’s own little music, then you are very right, I am an elitist. You: “(Amélie, first of all, is an overrated crock of poo. Sure..the first few scenes are dandy fine, but then it inevitably slips into Hollywood coupling and all.) Me: I wonder Chris if you possibly are having serious problems with any work of art that triggers a repressed sensitivity in you? “Amélie” to me (and millions of others) isn't “an overrated crock of poo,” it is a glimmer of hope in a world that seems bent on diving into its own self destructive drives. In that sense, “Amélie” paints a picture of a world in which relationships between people are closer to what they should/could be like than most current animation movies. Being the softy that I am, I really like Martine Chartrand’s “Black Soul,” Frédéric Back’s, Michaël Dudok de Wit’s, and many more. This actually makes me realize that I don’t as much have a real issue with “narrative animation,” I have a totally visceral dislike for anything that lacks poetry (which means the vast majority of the works available almost everywhere). You: “And this stuff about the entertainment noise. Those who want this ambitious forms of art can get it if they want it. Those who want light should have it. Who are YOU to say that THIS is wrong and THAT is right? “ Me: I guess you are telling me I am wrong, right? You: “That's just b.s. elitism. And how many hockey games do you attend? Hockey, my friend, I could argue is a fuggin spiritual form of art whose artists rival Norman McLaren for their spontaneity, rhythm, grace and innovations.” Me: Chris, I was selected to the Belgian National ice hockey team more than fifty times, even was its captain several times. I played semi-pro hockey in Europe for many years, so if you want to talk hockey, I’m game! And I do watch hockey games regularly when they mean something, which means I seldom follow games during the regular season and only get involved during the playoffs (“Go Sens Go!”). You: “And hey..the french! Werent they the first country to let the Germans in? Arent they close to voting in a racist government? Didnt they salivate over the very overrated Jerry Lewis? Didnt they WELCOME, inevitably, all this supposed U.S. garbage you so loath?” Me: I totally agree with you as far as Jerry Lewis (and Disney) are concerned, but I think you missed completely what happened during the first turn (“tour” in French) of these presidential elections, and the second turn this coming Sunday will likely set the record straight. You: “To get the codes for most of this ELEVATED STUFF ones needs an education in art history...among other things... without that it's tuff...and how do people get these educations? That requires, unlike Europe, MONEY for a post-secondary education. (along with educated teachers) So...in short...to acquire the tools to be prepped for this non-narrative stuff you so love..one needs experience and how does one get that without an education, money, class etc... “ Me: Wrong, so very wrong.You totally overlook the inherent ability we have to recognize Quality when we see it! (I’ll read Bourdieu but please, read Pirsig, or reread what Socrates has to say about that.) Of course, if we do have this ability, then to be satisfied with crap becomes our “fault,” and I believe that may be the (raw) nerve I just struck here. You: “and of course...the other problem is distribution and exhibition---if I had the freedom to program the Cartoon Network for a year and wanted to just do sophisticated festival shorts...no one would friggin watch...they'd switch over because they are not accustomed to non-narrative or even elliptical narratives or absurd narratives (ie. Priit Parn)... Me: You’re kidding right? How could “they” be accustomed to a non-narrative discourse if all they ever are offered by people like you (who could make a difference) is that bland narrative pabulum? What’s the point of doing anything if that which we do does not speak directly to us, regardless of the public’s response/expectations? You: “And this nonsense about animation being stagnant is load of HOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYY. McLaren and Bute? that's it? So..you're saying that animation ended there? Just in Canada...Richard Reeves, Stephen Arthur, Stephen Woloshen, Rick Raxlen, Jean Theberge, Pierre Hebert...in the U.S. David Ehrlich, Janie Geiser, George Griffin, Joanna Priestly, Joan Gratz,...the list goes on and on and on.” Me: Yes, and I personally like some of them. But please, tell me: where can one see their works? Where are they available for viewing outside of very obscure circuits, especially if festivals like Ottawa’s are now going to “go with the linear narrative flow because that’s what people are used to?” You: “And hey...yeah sure...once in a while I lose my cool with U.S. either/or 'world as merchandise' attitudes...but hey...fuggit...there's lots of damn good things out of the U.S. Find me a better writer than William Faulkner? Hubert Selby Jr? Charles Olson? William Carlos Williams? Robert Creeley, William Burroughs,... Me: Proust, Céline, Joyce, Beckett, T.S. Eliot, and on and on... You: “You attack the U.S. for it's either/or culture and its subsequent detonation of the past but then you apply THOSE very attitudes when you write off the U.S. as nothing but a Disnified Mcculture filled with YEEHAWS and Toothless morons...and that's b.s. Me: “the U.S. as nothing but a Disnified Mcculture filled with YEEHAWS and Toothless morons” I like that one, can I borrow it from you? But of course, the US also gave us Pollock, de Kooning, Rothko, Kline, Guston, and more. It is not all “Disnified Mcculture,” at least not yet, but it sure looks like it’s gettin’ there!. (I sure hope I am wrong!) You: “The world is as WE made it. We have the art (I refuse to differentiate between art and entertainment anymore) WE created. You are what you eat.” Me: The world is not -only- what we made it, it is also what we are making it right now. We are not only what we eat, we also are what that which we eat ate, and so on. There is a communal responsibility inherent in the things we tend to settle for, and most of the stuff most people seem to be willing to settle for leaves me totally unfulfilled. I guess that’s why I am an artist, if I could get satisfied by proxy, I would be happy being a spectator. “What did you eat today?”

"Art is made by those who dare explore the impossible" That statement alone, I agree with.... but to use it in an article that starts off very much saying that public funding ought to go towards this "daring" for or art, this "exploration of the impossible" is shear hyppocracy. How daring or impossible is it to "create" when given money outside the free market and have, going into it, no expectation of people liking it or not. It need not succede. In fact, the article seems to say that the more people who like it, the more dumb it must be. It would be much more daring and much more like ART in my eyes to sacrifice your own time and invest your own money, or find actual people who are willing to invest their own money on such unaccepted or undesired forms of art. Why must the masses pay for art pre-defined as something the masses DON'T want. You want something "different", then create it. Animation's lack of diversity is due to those creating. Look at the variety of films in Hollywood... there is more there than is first apparent.... and you know what? Film exists outside Hollywood. There is a huge diversity in indie films in America and elsewhere. If there weren't would it suddenly become public necessity to have the government sponsor this "indie" art form of filmmaking with tax payer dollars? No. The diversity in private and corporate and indie and freelance and artsy films is up to the creators. Asking for public funding kills the whole purpose of art, especially in seeing art as: made by those who dare explore the impossible. Wouldn't, then, the struggle to make it outside the dependence on money be part of it. Look at the issue involved here. Corporations MAKE money, and put it into something that they like, want and that they are hoping will make more money for them. The indies that hate is corporate capitolist evil MONEY being involved, and MONEY being the important thing.... whats he asking for: for PUBLIC MONEY in order to make this "outside the evil corporate MONEY system" art possible. So it requires money then too, huh? Well, no one OWES the arts money forced out of them through taxes. Taxes are for the NECISSARY. Artists are not government fat. That is, if they are those who dare explore the impossible. Perhaps its just me, but who cares about someone who can dare whilst suckling on a nipple of the government sow. Sounds like you're nothing more than a corporation without a market and you're ticked people aren't buying the art. Business and art are two different things, pal. Business is making money, be it with art or service or functional products... art is outside of the business profit world in its creation, though art can be then taken to the business world and put out there for marketing and money. They are two seperate ideas, but claiming public funds a necissary for it only proves PRECISELY WHY corporate animation is "lowest common denomenator". They can't just take money from every household in order to fund their next project like taxes can and art levied.... they have to actually produce something that people bother to get up and go out to see and plop down their money for WILLINGLY. Which is the more daring? Private sacrifice, investment and risk, or asking for some government cheese under the condition of "if no one likes it, thats because its art" expectation. Thats intellectually dishonest because then the funded art can NEVER be proven unworthy.... no one likes it or wants it? must be important. Garbage all the way around.

To Elias Dancey: You say: “How daring or impossible is it to "create" when given money outside the free market and have, going into it, no expectation of people liking it or not. It need not succede. In fact, the article seems to say that the more people who like it, the more dumb it must be.” Me: Not quite, I defended “Amélie” and it was/is a huge success. However, because it does not cater to the usual proven commercial agenda, it would never have had a chance to be made had it not been for the peculiar French funding system. That system is under direct attack by the US-led juggernaut, and that is what I am taking issue at. Funding in the world defined but this religion of “free market” relies almost exclusively on what has worked, precluding any serious support for what is yet to be made, or proven by being made. The experimental aspect of art work (in terms of “pure science versus applied science”) is now almost totally killed, except in places where either wisdom, vision, or old habits have made that experimental approach still part of the landscape. You: “It would be much more daring and much more like ART in my eyes to sacrifice your own time and invest your own money, or find actual people who are willing to invest their own money on such unaccepted or undesired forms of art. Why must the masses pay for art pre-defined as something the masses DON'T want.” Me: This is another load of “crap.” Obviously today, the taste of the masses isn’t their inherent taste, it is the one that is instilled and nurtured by the mass media and the organized campaigns orchestrated to “keep them in their place” (the good old “bread and games”). The masses are made of "you," and "me." (Actually, on second thought...?) You: “You want something "different", then create it.” Me: Man, you better believe I am doing just that, and doing it without much money to boot, nor any attempt to find any. But the search for meaning -or being- is far more important to me than the search for having. You: “The diversity in private and corporate and indie and freelance and artsy films is up to the creators. Asking for public funding kills the whole purpose of art,” Me: More “crap.” It is/was possible for an “independent painter” to paint without much public (or corporate) support (cost of materials is a lot less than for film), but it is still likely impossible for a truly independent film maker (unless he is independently wealthy) to find the means to do his/her work without doing a song and a dance which have very little to do with the work itself. I said “still likely impossible” because, with the advent of, for example Apple’s G4 and Final Cut Pro, this is likely to change, and to change quickly. I know so many animators who had to mortgage their life (and/or flip burgers) just to find some of the money needed to do their “real” work, only to come up with a 6 minutes marvel that nobody gives a hoot about, and still be full of debts. Yet that type of work is the much needed opening away from Disney and the likes... You: “Corporations MAKE money, and put it into something that they like, want and that they are hoping will make more money for them....So it requires money then too, huh? Well, no one OWES the arts money forced out of them through taxes.” Me: Corporations are today’s “Royal Houses,” and they most certainly do not often support art that is not glorifying them (unlike “enlightened patrons”). Yet, without a deep and vibrant criticism, corporations, like Royal Houses and countries, will die and collapse under their own bloat. The amount of money large animation studios could invest in supporting truly experimental work is almost insignificant to them, yet it could be the lifeline for some poor sucker still trying to follow another piper. And in return, it could provide those studios with possibilities they are too big to uncover themselves. You: “Taxes are for the NECISSARY.” Me: Elias, if Art is not part and parcel of what is truly NECESSARY, what is? And if you really believe that Art is futile, the icing on the cake, the fat that we can really do without, what the hell are you in animation for? Or is this an implicit acceptance that animation, as you practise it, is not Art? By the way, I totally agree with J.K. Galbraith, “taxes are the price of civilization.” You: “Business and art are two different things, pal.” Me: Thank god (or whatever)! You: “Private sacrifice, investment and risk, or asking for some government cheese under the condition of "if no one likes it, thats because its art" expectation. Thats intellectually dishonest because then the funded art can NEVER be proven unworthy.... no one likes it or wants it? must be important. Garbage all the way around.” Me: You’ve got that all wrong, according to Chris Robinson, “it is all Art!” Cheesy, no? Rembrandt and your favorite cartoon character, hand in hand walking towards the dark hole that awaits us all, singing at the top of their voice: “Life is a bitch, and then you die! Tideli, tidelidum.”

Just two points: The question of seeking quality of life is of a course a worthy task, but again, what you call shit, might be gold to the person next to you. You seem pretty intolerant towards those who do think that Shrek is quality (for example). Secondly...I noticed a not so subtle punch at the Ottawa festival...about narrative films...but I might add that just this year we introduced a non-narrative category. The rest...well...hey..I respectfully disagree....

To Chris Robinson: You say: “The question of seeking quality of life is of a course a worthy task, but again, what you call shit, might be gold to the person next to you. You seem pretty intolerant towards those who do think that Shrek is quality (for example).” Me: Fair enough, but as I find my space (whatever that is) more and more invaded by Shrek/South Park, I see very little room left for the search for Quality as I see/need it. Even to simply mention the fact that there is such a thing as a search for Quality is often now enough to be branded an elitist. As a teacher, I have seen, time and again, students coming in with a “Shrek baggage:” who very quickly open up to their need to search for (their) Quality the minute the environment is supportive of such a journey. I honestly believe that we not only can differentiate between “Shrek” and Quality without “special education” (it is an inherent ability), we actually need to do so (it is an inherent drive). You: “Secondly...I noticed a not so subtle punch at the Ottawa festival...about narrative films...but I might add that just this year we introduced a non-narrative category.” Me: And that is great news, really. I’ve attended a bunch of your festivals and was beginning to wonder when (and if) that would ever happen (and yet, I owe Ottawa the chance to have seen Mary Ellen Bute’s work, something that actually confirmed my own direction in animation; I finally found my "kin" in animation). In fact, I believe that if we were to explore more non-narrative animation, we may find in there ways to really renew narrative work, just as (so-called) “abstract art” has been a way by which we changed our way of seeing “figurative” images. You: “The rest...well...hey..I respectfully disagree.... “ Me: I can live with that, and appreciate your saying so.