Search form

Animation history?

55 posts / 0 new
Last post
Animation history?

Hey gang,

I've noticed lately that lots of "animators" don't seem to know much about animation history. Or if they do, it doesn't extend back much past the mid-90's (Lion King, Toy Story).

Personally, I think animation history is full of amazing stories and interesting people, not to mention inspiring work that was made way before many of us were born. I'm perplexed as to why lots of folks in the business today seem to care little (if at all) about early works like the Fleischer's Superman series or classic Hanna Barbera Tom & Jerry cartoons.

So what's your take? Does what came before what's in the cineplex today matter to you or not? If so, why, and if not, why not?

You're right. That statement of mine appears condescending.
The irony is that I went over it to strip of anything that might seem harsh or arrogant.
I probably should have left it out altogether. I apologize. :o

Apology definitely accepted. Thank you.

I'll admit I can get hot headed over relatively unimportant matters like this and shouldn't have called you any names and been so immediatly defensive. Like I said, many times it's very easy to take things improperly when you can't hear the tone of the speaker or give them a chance to explain themselves better. In any event, I apologize, as well. :o

Now let's get back to figuring out what killed 2D... I believe it was Professor Plumb with the Xeon processor core 150 blade render farm in the air conditioned robot controlled server room... ;)

Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com

Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight

Now let's get back to figuring out what killed 2D... I believe it was Professor Plumb with the Xeon processor core 150 blade render farm in the air conditioned robot controlled server room... ;)

Oh, wait, that's another thread.

Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com

Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight

However, on a separate thought, I think your a bit off the mark on the caricature thing (I disagree with your definition, not your point of needing it for animation) but just to play devils advocate, aren't all (or nearly all) of those examples of caricatured characters? They're lighter than others, not necessarily suited for carictures in the sense of Political cartoons, but more in the broad definition of the term.

I'm just going by the following definitions:

car·i·ca·ture
n.

[list=1][list=1]
[*]A representation, especially pictorial or literary, in which the subject's distinctive features or peculiarities are deliberately exaggerated to produce a comic or grotesque effect.
[*] The art of creating such representations.
[/list]
[*] A grotesque imitation or misrepresentation: The trial was a caricature of justice.
[/list]synonyms: burlesque, parody, travesty, satire, lampoon
[b]
caricature[/b] a satirical drawing, plastic representation, or description which, through exaggeration of natural features, makes its subject appear ridiculous.

caricature In art or literature, portrayal of an individual or thing that exaggerates and distorts prominent characteristics so as to make them appear ridiculous. Caricature is commonly a medium for satire.

I don't think caricature is merely any artistic form of simplification.
If that were true, a simplified narrative - like children's literature - would automatically be a form of caricature.

If your goal is to be the best you can be, then omitting something that could benefit seems like another way of hurting.

After giving this some thought I realized something about knowing animation history, you need to communicate with others. With all the different cinema technique and how much a person can convey with just a few works. We are kicking around the work caricature, we all know what the word stand for. So one could quickly communicate, I am working in the caricature style of whomever lived in the earyly 1900's.

Knowing history is good. My two cents.

We are kicking around the work caricature, [b]
we all know what the word stand for.[/b]

obviously not

If you and kdiddy didn't know what caricature is, I imagine there are others who don't know, as well. I.E., some of you seem to think that caricature is simply synonymous with "cartoon" or "illustration." This is not the case.

Knowledge is power.
Ignorance is bliss.

You decide!

The Brothers McLeod
[SIZE=2]brothersmcleod.co.uk[/SIZE]

I thing that people is not taking animation seriously, everybody is too focus on programs more than drawing. Those who can`t draw go and try with 3d soft, instead of trying to draw a little more, practice, no... everybody takes the easy way.
In those years, if you wanted to be an animator, you must draw, and draw a lot!... that`s way (i think) the works of that time are so grat. Because it`s art. And those guys were artist`s.
Today, nobady want`s to look at those cartoons because, in order to enjoy them you need to go to the basis.

For instance, I'm still amazed at people who give Lucas credit for digital animation when it was his (and his board's) decision to 'give' Pixar to Catmull because they didn't find it viable (kind of paraphrasing, but you get the picture).

Exactly. Although Lucas (like the Clampett example Haredevil gave) participates in the muddling of the facts of his career history. But that's a topic for a whole other thread :D

I listen to the commentary on DVD's and the people on those always reference work by all decades.

I think you may be selling young animators short. Sure, in every industry there are those who rever the past more than others but you sound like my grandfather "Back in my day...those kids and there rock and roll...they just dont make them like they used to"

I'm a huge fan of the older Tom and Jerry cartoons, and when I can watch them I try to study them as much as possible. They had so many different run/walk cycles, plus the timing is perfect. It must have been fun to work on, just animating gag after gag. Also, since there is basically no dialogue, the acting comes into play much more. It's been forever since I've seen any old warner bros toons, but if my memory serves me they were animated just as well. Heck, if someone could recommend a decent WB DVD that would be great.
It's a shame that all the great cartoons were on TV when I was just a kid watching them for fun.

I agree with Huan1

Good point!!!!!!

I think there is some creditbility to the idea that folks who aren't into the "art" of the artform tend to drift away from the "art" of past animation and focus on techhie stuff and programs.

My current bug-a-boo is folks who refer to 3D animators as "puppeteers".

I feel its important to know about folks who came before the current crop of folks. It gives a proper context to what is occurring in the industry now.

I look at films like Harmon and Ising's PEACE ON EARTH and go "Whoooaaaa, amazing stuff" ...even compared to today's work.

Merry Christmas!!!

I'm glad someone else likes the Fleischer Superman cartoons. Just the other night I saw I think 8 of them for dirt cheap at the store and I exploded with glee...I told the person next to me that I thought moreso even than the highly structured grace of Disney, for the tone they struck those cartoons would've gotten me into anim more than anything if I'd been alive back then...

I'd pay a jillion dollars to see that at a theatre...

It's actually -really- weird you wrote this, DSB. I was just thinking about writing you to update you on all that's been going on with me, and independently also craving some good background info on the people, places, toons, studios, etc...I understand the importance of it to the art and for my own development, and am a big history buff anyhow...plus any bits I've learned so far have been very interesting...so why not continue the trend? =)

Perhaps this would be a good thread to start off suggesting good resources for where to find out more, about whosits and whatsits galore...so to speak ;)

i think knowing the history of animation is always a great thing but i dont find it essential.
i personally have a great interest in it and i love making of aspects. but i dont think its imperative.
a lot of people havent seen enough and there are some old animated films or things that i find utterly boring or on a different plane of things. I still love how they are made but the content itself i find very uninteresting.

New Member!

Hello Ladies & Gentlements:

This would be my very first step to get into the world of animation. For the past 3 years, I am searching for a new career/business. Last week, I had chance to see how a small company here in the Philippines with 10 artists busy doing art works for a Korean company. It captured my attention and I would like to get more information directly from the community ifself.

1. Should I start this new career? What do I need to know? What area should I get into?

2. How can a starter like myself get started with small contract from outside the Philippines to pay off all the monthly expense of running a small office?

As you can see, I don't even have good questions to start with. I just hope somehow, somewhere, there is someone willing to share and give me guidance to start a new career.

Thanks
terry.hua@votek.com.ph

Heck, if someone could recommend a decent WB DVD that would be great.

Um, Warner Bros. have spent thousands maybe millions restoring all the cartoons they possess in their libraries and putting them onto dvd. The Looney Tunes in particular have seen DVD releases since 2003. I have Vol. 1, 2, & 3 myself and many more are coming.
If you weren't aware of this prior to my post, that's not a slight on you. It just shows how absolutely pitiful the advertising department of Warner Bros. animation division is, both for their animated features and DVD releases. I guess it's up to the rest of us to use our word of mouth in order to promote these DVDs. ;)

Anyway, about animation history, here's what a complete idiot told me earlier this year: Who gives a shit about what some studio did here or what some animator did here or the complete blueprint to every shit Tex Avery took... does it really matter?....... What have you done again? Read some historical trivia? I would maybe step away from the worship complex you have over the old guys otherwise you will just end up rehashing what they have already done before better than you. How do you respond to this bullshit? (Besides saying "that's a bunch of bullshit")

One thing to tell the young kids getting into the industry is that sure animation history won't improve your draftsman skills but it'll certainly make you a better artist. If you want to be proficient in this medium it's good to know as much as you can about it and that includes the history. Like a teacher at my animation school said once "The more you know, the more you have to work with".
There was a special documentary on the Disney studio hosted by Haley Mills. At one point she said "when the animators at the studio today have trouble with the animation for a scene they're working on, they come down here and find some of the old pencil tests for past animators." See, it's pretty much an industry standard. If you want to know what animation is all about, you have to study all animation, from the past leading up to the present. This way, you have a better chance at predicting animation's future.

Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.

You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti

If your goal is to be the best you can be, then omitting something that could benefit seems like another way of hurting.

That's the thing. Some of these people think that knowing the history actually hurts their artistry. They fear that if they are exposed to much of the past that they will just end up rehashing it and never come up with anything new. (refer to the idiot I cited a few posts back :rolleyes: ). However, many of them don't realize that actually the OPPOSITE of that sentiment is the truth. You're doomed to repeat history if you ignore it.

Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.

You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti

Haredevil is spot on there. i think its very imperative to learn from other animators mistakes. but that dosent mean you have to know the history of animation.
reading up on problems and tech issues can be a great insight and inspiration

Which is not to say people won't deliberately seek repetition. How many people have you run into that say stuff like "Oh man, Blankety Blankblank is a GENIUS! I'm going to worship his existence from a great distance and do everything in my work just like that!" It's kinda creepy, because sure that's a way to start learning (I understand in masters classes you trace over drawings, for example, and I hear things like "everyone on AnimationNation seems to think Milt Kahl hands are the lost commandment") but it leaves no space for anything that they'd do from and for themselves, or contribute in terms of originality. It's like fanboy + archaeology =P

I essentially have the same position as Skinnylizard (I think).
Full-spectrum knowledge of animation history is important to me personally, but it's not necessary in order to become a good or competent animator.

An exception might be if one wanted to become an animation teacher, or if one wanted to become the most skilled and versatile animator: an Incredibles, Looney Tunes, or Disney shorts-quality animator. But since so little of what is produced needs to reach that standard, it's usually not necessary to be completely versed.

I'll draw the parallel of the fledgling rock musician.
A high school kid can become a great guitar player by simply practicing every day, listening to a few of his contemporaries, and getting audience feedback. A knowledge of rhythms all the way back to Jelly Roll Morton can make him a better all-around musician, but it won't necessarily make him more successful or endear him more to his audience.

"Doomed to repeat history" is really just an oversimplified cliche.
You can "repeat history" whether you're well-read or not, intentionally or unintentionally.

People often start threads on these forums claiming that you must know this or that in order to create animation.
[i]"You can't unless you know history."
"You can't unless you take classes."
"You can't unless you're an excellent draftsman."
"You can't unless you know caricature."
"You can't unless you know your anatomy."
"You can't unless you follow the Principles."
"You can't unless you've read this or that book."[/i]
etc.

None of these things are a guarantee that you're going to create successful animation unless your work needs to conform to specific standards, like the standards of an established studio like Pixar or Aardman.
But if you're going to go to work for a studio like that, you want to zero in on studying every cartoon that studio has ever produced, rather than studying the entirety of animation history.

"You can't unless you know caricature." Ok, I think your are reaching a little bit on this one. On the whole, you are probably right, but I think Pixar works with their talent. If you got your foot in the door, then there is a really good chance you have what they wont.

"You can't unless you know caricature." Ok, I think your are reaching a little bit on this one.

Are you saying that all animation must incorporate caricature?
See, this is what I'm talking about: people become brainwashed by "academia."
There are plenty of animated characters that aren't caricatures or employ little caricature:
all the animals and tall characters in Snow White, half of the human characters in Cinderella, all the characters in Bambi, Watership Down, The Iron Giant, King of the Hill, The Polar Express, many Pixar characters, much of anime, nearly all CGI animation, most superhero cartoons, Winsor McCay, Polar Express, Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly, Jonny Quest, etc.

A friend of mine at animation school has somewhat of an "on the fence" stance on this subject. This is what he told me some time ago: The Looney Tunes created by the the original creators are amazing, but lets gets get behind the new creators of new ideas of our time.

I half agree with that statement. Or maybe I should say that I agree with both ideas in that sentence but not the way they're put together. Yes, we should definitely get behind innovative artists in the present times and look for any upcoming artists who could shape the future. But, the way the sentence plays out it sounds like one has to cast the past artists into the abyss in order to accomplish this. If anything one HAS to draw upon the past in order to better shape the future of animation. Otherwise it could easily be lead astray into some ugly place it shouldn't be. :eek:

Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.

You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti

I have more experience with comic book artists in terms of the pros and cons of knowing your history. There's a school of thought that an artist should work in the same way as they did in the golden age (which ended in 1955) in order to become that level of artist. This is just silly, antiquated thinking. The golden age artists were using enything they could get their hands on to meet deadlines. Restricting yourself to the technology that existed in 1955 is NOT following their example.

I'd have to say the same goes for animation. There are some basic compositional and storytelling rules that have been with us for hundreds of years. When someone sits down in front of a film-- animated or otherwise-- there are just certain expectations that come from generations of what Hitchcock calls audience conditioning. There is such a thing as serendipity, but you can't really innovate through ignorance. If you want to break a rule, you have to be aware of why it exists, and of the effect that breaking it is likely to have on a viewer.

Whether you're aware of it or not, the words "cartoon" or "animation" will trigger expectations in your head based on what you're aware of. And if you're only aware of what's been done in the last 20 years, you're being influenced by someone who was influenced by someone you're not aware of. This is how mediums become watered down parodies of themselves.

I love The Incredibles and really like Triplets of Belleville. But on both story-telling and design levels, I don't think the Fleischer studios Superman shorts from the 30s and 40s have been topped.

I think the idea behind the studying of the history of the artform is less concerened with the facts, figures and dates and more with the human element--those "sad stories" as was mentioned.

I recall a number of my older colleagues taking pains to seek out the older cartoonists and visit them personally to glean nuggets of wisdom at their knee as it were.
Before the easy route of todays animation schools came along, this was one of the key ways to gain a lot of insight into the biz before actually working in it.
I'd LOVE to be able to chew the fat with Jack Kirby, or Ub Iwerks, or Charles Schulz--but they are all gone now.

The relevance of the history of the business to me is understanding what kinds of tolls it took on talent, and the successes some had in spite of those tolls. Its a business I'm in, not just a craft, and I'd like to find out how others have managed both.
Personally, I could care less about such and such a film being released on some date in 1940-whatever, and more interested in how a chronic drunk like Freddy Moore could draw so beautifully--for example.
History is relevant to whomever deems it relevant and whomever choses to learn from it--otherwise its just trivia.
Those that ignore history are more inclined to suffer from the lack of history's guidance and repeat some of the same mistake made before.
IMO, THAT is the value in knowing the history.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Personally, I could care less about such and such a film being released on some date in 1940-whatever, and more interested in how a chronic drunk like Freddy Moore could draw so beautifully--for example.

Well, the dates helps one organize the facts better. So, if someone said "I love Freddy Moore's work in Bedknobs and Broomsticks" well the response would be " Mr. Moore died in 1952 and B&B was released in approx. 1972 so there's no way he could have worked on it." Yes, the dates are not the most important part of the history but they do come in handy for such occasions.

But I do whole-heartedly agree, much wisdom can be derived from studying the artists of the past (a few of which are still working in the present). Just like Aristotle studied under Plato and became a great philospher himself, so too did John K. study under Bob Clampett and go on to revolutionize animation.

Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.

You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti

Animation is film, and film has a language and structure that anyone working in the medium needs to know in order to function effectively. I just read a Phil Tippett interview where he talked about how shocked he was when he referred to a classic film and more than half of the young effects artists on the show had never seen it. That's a huge handicap for those artists and for the studio that employs them.

An encyclopedic knowledge isn't necessary, to be sure, but I think it's important to delve back beyond one's own childhood and be aware of landmark work. Otherwise, you're drawing from a very shallow pool of references, and the work will show it.

Naturally those animators on DVD commentary tracks would be able to refer to historic works - because they've seen them and appreciate what went into them. They're the exception that proves the rule. For every one of them, there are hundreds working in the business that couldn't tell you whether Chuck Jones created Yosemite Sam or not (Haredevil will provide the answer for those who don't know... :D )

I'm not trying to sound like anyone's grandfather here. I just don't understand why anyone would intentionally limit their visual vocabulary by not learning at least knowing *a bit* about the history of the artform they profess to care about.

I'm not a big fan of Cubism, but I know what it's about and where it came from.

Historical information can prove beneficiary in any endevour. However your assertion that young animators arent concerned with animation history is simply not objective.

For every one of them, there are hundreds working in the business that couldn't tell you whether Chuck Jones created Yosemite Sam or not (Haredevil will provide the answer for those who don't know... :D )

Knowing who created Yosemite Sam (Freleng, Maltese, and Blanc, I imagine) is not going to make someone a better animator.

If one wants to animate like the Looney Tunes animators, then they should probably buy the Looney Tunes DVDs.
However, if one wants to animate like Yuri Norstein or Lotte Reiniger or Sylvain Chomet or Bill Plympton or in a completely original style, then they're not going to have as much practical use for Looney Tunes DVDs.

obviously not

If you and kdiddy didn't know what caricature is, I imagine there are others who don't know, as well. I.E., some of you seem to think that caricature is simply synonymous with "cartoon" or "illustration." This is not the case.

I should have known better to get into an semantics with "Dictionary Harvey." There's no way you'll win. :p

I'm going by a bit of a looser interrpretation of the word, but most of those examples do exaggerate (and simplification is a version of exageration) specific body parts, many times for comic effect (sometimes not). The ones that exaggerate do seem to follow the idea, if not the specific definition of caricturization. Anime exaggerates the eyes, for instance, for a number of reasons (to denote good, trustworthy characters for one). Now again it doesn't fit into the specific definition of caricature (although chibi, and many anime cartoons do employ exaggeration and caracturization for comic effect... I don't think people's heads really expand to 3 times normal size when they're yelling, tears fly out of their eyes over minor disappointments, etc), but it does imply a knowledge of what's needed to exagerate or simplify. I understand that the classic defintion basically only allows for the specific caricatures that the guys down at the Fireman's Fair are doing for five bucks of dudes and their girls or in the paper showing Bush looking like a monkey in a political cartoon, but I'd argue that the act of caricurization is a very important part of animation and illustration, if not specifically, the intent certainly. But I am stretching the definition on this, I will conceed that.

They may not simply be caricatures by strict definition, but they do all employ many of the skills developed by doing caricatures, in particular the ability to enhance the parts that make a specific character or animal recognizable (like squinty eyes and sharp eyebrows on the villain or broad jaw and blond hair of the hero).

Learning caricatures helps with this, it is not strictly necessary, but it will help when it comes to designing new characters. Just as understanding the history of animation and it's art will give you a tool set that will help you design and develop your own art. Necessary? Nope, just a another bunch of tools to help solve the problem of putting out quality animated films.

Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com

Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight

Unless you're looking to those DVDs for things to avoid. Original could be less about "This popped into my head and has never been done before" and more about "I tried my damnedest not to look like everything that has been done before."

I thought the example was going to be when he started really getting into the drinking and utilizing the dates to see how his work improved :D

Historical information can prove beneficiary in any endevour. However your assertion that young animators arent concerned with animation history is simply not objective.

On the contrary; I witness it firsthand far too often. I wouldn't have brought up the subject if what I've been seeing were an isolated incident. However, you're free to believe what you wish

Harvey, the Yosemite Sam example was a metaphor for the whole discussion, and not to be taken literally. Sorry you missed that. However, in reference to what you said, knowing Sam's genesis could make someone a better animator if they're exposed to the reasons why the character was created, given the personality traits he was, and so on. Animation isn't exclusively about knowing how to depict movement, after all.

This could be all time and location sensitive as to weather a person knows or is interested in the history of animation. It is possable that you happen to be in a group of people who don't know and/or don't care about the history.

Harvey, the Yosemite Sam example was a metaphor for the whole discussion, and not to be taken literally. Sorry you missed that.

Your "metaphor" needs work, then.

However, in reference to what you said, knowing Sam's genesis could make someone a better animator if they're exposed to the reasons why the character was created, given the personality traits he was, and so on. Animation isn't exclusively about knowing how to depict movement, after all.

It depends on what type of animation you want to create.
If you want to create Looney-style animation, study Looney Tunes. If you want to create something unique, the Tunes may not help you so much.

An animator with no knowledge of Chuck Jones can become as great as an animator with no knowledge of Frederic Back.
An animator with knowledge of all animation history will not necessarily become a great or even good animator.
An animator with minimal knowledge of cartoons can become great by simply studying life.

Animation precedents can be an important educational source, but I believe the animator's chief source should be real-life counterparts.
The danger of referencing the styles of others is that all animation styles within a culture start to look alike, as they do in Japan and the USA to a large extent.

DSB, Its not that your point is completely lost with me. Nonetheless, using broad umbrella statements sounds as uneducated as you make these "animators" you witness so often seem. Why did you place the word animator in quotation in your initial post anyway?...um...subjective...

I understand that you might feel a bit ashamed for not knowing what caricature is, but don't change its definition to accommodate your unfamiliarity.

Caricature specifically exaggerates features to RIDICULOUS or COMIC effect. Caricature is more closely associated with SATIRE than it is with animation.
Will Forte performing as George W. Bush is caricature.
The characters in the Fleischer Superman 'toons are not caricature.

The examples you give exaggerate illustration for THEATRIC effect, not specifically comic or satirical effect. In the same way a stage actor must exaggerate his expressions in order to be seen and heard from the back row, illustrators exaggerate comedic or dramatic characters to make ink and paint look more lively; but neither form is necessarily caricature.

Why did you place the word animator in quotation in your initial post anyway?

It's easy to infer that he means to say that one isn't truly an animator unless one knows his history.

If that were a fact, it would be objective.

So is that to say that the early animators, the Frielings, Jones, etc. weren't capable of becoming good animators because they didn't know the history (there wasn't any significant amount of history to learn from as they were the first)? Logically that's one conclusion that could be drawn. Absurd.

However, that's not to say that learning history won't help you. It's by no means a guarantee of anything other than becoming a historian in animation, but it does offer tools to any animator, just as studying the 'masters' offers insights into techniques for painters. It's another set of tools that will only help out in the long run. And as far as learning names and dates, it's like all history, it's mostly trivia that serves the side purpose of being able to look up the specifics of any particular artist, otherwise it's just that, trivia.

As far as why kids don't want to learn history? Kids in general don't want to learn history and just want to get to the doing. Not all but most. Youth is impatient as a general rule. It always has been and always will be. I was, as I imagine many of you were or are. Nothing new, but a lack of interest does not mean that they are ignorant to history.

That being said, the program I went through requires that anyone seeking a degree in animation take at least one quarter in animation history (which btw is as thorough as could be expected), as well as required to take any where from 4-8 more History classes on film and animation (including a very good computer animation history class) as well as being constantly exposed to historical and rare animated films by professors in their produciton classes.

In a nutshell, your statement is resoundingly untrue with my alumni.

Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com

Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight

I understand that you might feel a bit ashamed for not knowing what caricature is, but don't change its definition to accommodate your unfamiliarity.

May I hazard a guess that you also enjoy correcting people's pronuciations and lord your superior spelling over them?

My point had become, through considering your point, that the art of the caricature is a useful tool for recognizing when, where, and what to exaggerate even if it doesn't fit the traditional 1880's definition. But then again, that's a finer point of discussion and debate that I imagine that you'll never be able to grasp, the gradual reshaping of our opinions and understanding that the world is not as black and white as we often would like to believe. In short, you were right that I was (am) bending the definition a bit, but I'll stand by my statement that caricature, most specifically the skills involved with it, is an important tool in much of animation.

That being said, please accept my humble apology as a student of the American education system. Sorry to offend Thee, oh God and Last Say of the American Animation Dictionary. I'll leave this discussion in favor of working on my animations and living to discuss other topics another day.

Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com

Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight

i have a few people working for me and all of them have learnt on the job through the years. Vs them i have a new batch of BFA's who have been trained in art history and have a very good understanding of pop culture and animation through the years.
but in terms of actual animation - production they are far behind. i dont think history makes a good animator. i think experience, practice and style do. all three of them you can get without studying the history of animation.
i think history of whatever you do is important to have but its not required. its a personal choice i reckon in the end.

I see no reason to get so defensive. Knowing what animation and caricature are is much more important (here, anyway) than spelling every word correctly; and, if you've read my posts, it's obvious that I don't - or extremely rarely - correct people's spelling. That's not to say that I wouldn't, but I wouldn't do it to feel superior. I'd do it to be helpful. What if a student was researching an essay but wasn't spelling an animator's name correctly? What if he was writing it about caricature but didn't understand what caricature is? Shouldn't someone step in before he hands in his assignment?

I am certain that there are words that I use that I don't understand the meaning of or am not pronouncing correctly. When people correct me - provided they don't ridicule me - I'm grateful, because it prevents me from continually appearing ignorant or foolish. Being offended when helpful people correct you is self-destructive.

Anyway, we all seem to agree on my basic point:
Knowledge of history, caricature, anatomy, etc. aren't necessarily required in order to create great animation; but they can be valuable depending on what it is the animator needs to achieve. :)

In a nutshell, your statement is resoundingly untrue with my alumni.

First off, it was an observation and a question, not a statement. Second, I'm glad to hear you've experienced the opposite. Since you're on the other side of the world from me, it's not hard to believe that you'd see something different in your peer group than what I see in mine.

Marco, I have no idea why you feel the need to insult me and mis-state what I've said in this thread. First, I sound like a "grandfather", then I'm "uneducated". I've made an observation, based on my experience (and the experience of others I know, btw). That's far from a "broad umbrella statement". If you don't agree with me, fine; that's your prerogative. But there's no need to make it personal.

I understand that you might feel a bit ashamed for not knowing what caricature is, but don't change its definition to accommodate your unfamiliarity.

I see no reason to get so defensive. Knowing what animation and caricature are is much more important (here, anyway) than spelling every word correctly; and, if you've read my posts, it's obvious that I don't - or extremely rarely - correct people's spelling. That's not to say that I wouldn't, but I wouldn't do it to feel superior. I'd do it to be helpful. What if a student was researching an essay but wasn't spelling an animator's name correctly? What if he was writing it about caricature but didn't understand what caricature is? Shouldn't someone step in before he hands in his assignment?

I am certain that there are words that I use that I don't understand the meaning of or am not pronouncing correctly. When people correct me - provided they don't ridicule me - I'm grateful, because it prevents me from continually appearing ignorant or foolish. Being offended when helpful people correct you is self-destructive.

Anyway, we all seem to agree on my basic point:
Knowledge of history, caricature, anatomy, etc. aren't necessarily required in order to create great animation; but they can be valuable depending on what it is the animator needs to achieve. :)

My apologies. I felt that the original statement, rather than just disagreeing with me was an offensive jab at my intelligence (and a bit on the ridiculing side). That is a problem with the delayed responses of the internet (especially where sarcasm is involved). In other words, I was not offended by the correction, but by the means in which it was delivered.

If that wasn't the case, then I apologize, and in the spirit of mutual betterment, I'd suggest being a little less accusitory when trying to better (or correct) others. It's only natural that people become defensive when the message is delivered in such away.

After all that, I'll drop it and agree: knowledge in any of the various skills will typically only help you but lacking it won't necessarily prevent you from becoming a good or even great animator.

Producing solidily ok animation since 2001.
www.galaxy12.com

Now with more doodling!
www.galaxy12.com/latenight

Knowing who created Yosemite Sam (Freleng, Maltese, and Blanc, I imagine).

You forgot to include layout artist Hawley Pratt, possibly the most crucial part of that equation. (Of course, Bob Clampett tried to claim credit for creating Sam but most of us know that not to be true. ;) )

Actually, that brings up probably the most important aspect of animation history: credit where credit is due.

When animation was in its infancy, it was only the producer that got any screen credit (Charles Mintz, Walt Disney, Leon Schlesinger, etc.). Most of the artists hardly got any credit at all. Thus, people thought that Pat Sullivan created Felix the Cat for the Pat Sullivan studios. However, Pat was just the money man. It was actually Otto Messmer that conceived of Felix and brought him to life. Pat did promise Otto that he would be creditted for Felix but unfortunately died before he could do so in 1933. And, with Mr. Messmer being a quiet and humble man, he never spoke up about his work at the studio. So, all the history books recorded that Pat Sullivan created Felix. It wasn't until several decades later when Otto was a rickety old man that an animation historian finally cracked it out of him. So, the history books were corrected and Otto Messmer finally received his due credit. (btw, this bit inspired the Simpsons episode where a bum named Chester P. Lampwick claimed that Itchy was stolen from him by Roger Meyers Sr. I guess that's another good reason to study animation history. You can follow Simpsons episodes with Itchy & Scratchy in them :D )
Also, like I mentioned before, in an interview with Michael Barrier, Bob Clampett made an enormous claim that he himself created all the Looney Tunes characters or at least that he inspired the creation of many of them so much that credit should go to him. Well, his contemporaries didn't stand for that. Guys like Tex Avery and Chuck Jones spoke up against Bob's claims vehemently. And then, through exhaustive research (Bugs Bunny's creation story requiring the most attention) it was found that Clampett had only really created one of the popular Looney Tunes characters: Tweety.

So there you go, if it hadn't been for the study of animation history the genius of Otto Messmer would have remained a secret and Bob Clampett would have gotten away with purgery.

The young animators of today surely would like their hard work acknowledged for the fine art that it is. However, in order to fully deserve that recognition, it's only fair that they extend that same recognition to artists of the past and present. (Unless of course they happen to be Bob Clampett types who want to take credit for everything :eek: ).

Order my book Jesus Needs Help on Amazon or download on Kindle.

You can also read the first 18 pages of my next book for free at this link: The Hap Hap Happy Happenstance of Fanny Punongtiti

Hey harvey, that was my point. Maybe im not good at being sarcastic.

Hey DSB, take a lude.

You're right. That statement of mine appears condescending.
The irony is that I went over it to strip of anything that might seem harsh or arrogant.
I probably should have left it out altogether. I apologize. :o

Pages