Search form

Calarts style...?

24 posts / 0 new
Last post
Calarts style...?

I wasn't sure whether to post this in education or here, but considering the traffic in the education forum is close to dead, I figured here would be best.

I just wanted to get people's opinions on a certain point. John Kricfalusi, who I'm sure needs no introduction, recently in his blog was alluding to a certain Calarts style that has been prevalent in popular animation for quite some time.

His whole rant can be found here...

http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2007/01/dan-gordon-and-what-makes-cartoonist.html

I am aware that John K. is obsessed with his own style, or his stylistic contemporaries, and he views certain types of popular animation as being lousy, yadda, yadda. I appreciate his work and ideas very much, even if they may differ dramatically from my own. But what I'm interested in is larger than that.

My point is, what do you think the role of students to be in animation? Do you feel students should study what has come before, and learn to regurgitate Disney-esque, Warner-esque, or any other esque type work? Or do you feel that students should be encouraged to go crazy with their ideas to expand the medium to a fuller potential?

Being a student at Calarts, it's difficult for me to remain objective, but we're told that the students today are going to be the leaders tomorrow, so finding your own voice in your own work is important. Personally, I think school is the only place where you will be allowed to produce your own work at your own discretion, so one should take advantage of this opportunity to expand your ideas of what animation should be, in accordance to your own intuition. I am aware that much of what comes out of schools like Calarts tend to put the masters on pedastals an try to emulate them as much as possible, but I want professionals opinions on all this.

How do you fine people feel about any of this? Calarts Style? John K.? Student work? Totally off-base argument?

-moot

I take John K.'s words with a grain of salt myself, ESPECIALLY when he rants about shows he hates. If you can differentiate fact from opinion within his blogposts, you're fine. If not, you'll get mad at him like so many people do.

Which brings me to a question that I'll direct at anybody here who has worked for him in the past. Last summer, he made an off the cuff comment about how during Comic Con he stayed at a place called the N****r Rape Hotel. After that, some people considered him a racist ala Michael Richards' boneheaded move.

Did he simply make an off-color (pardon the pun) observation about how run down the hotel was? Or does he actually hold contempt for the African-American community? Before I receive any angry comments about me making false statements, my purpose is for 'clarification' not 'accusation'. Can someone shed some light on this?

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

According to his blog, he eats often at Roscoe's House of Chicken and Waffles, a chain of restaurants in Southern California that I, too, frequent(ed, when I lived there.) These establishments are holy shrines to black soul food.

No-one could eat the brilliant food there and still hold something against blacks. So I guess he can't be racist. :(

Righto, so I just paid a peek to CalArts' website. What I don't get is why/how they seem - from their own description of the character animation course - to cram life drawing principles into a single year. I was rather keen on CalArts until I read that, now I'm not so sure. I mean - whatever "style" you choose to use for whatever project later on, aren't all the foundational principles the most important part? Aren't those the very principles that the likes of Williams and Tytla spent a decade or two on before even getting into animation in the first place? So it just really turns me off to hear that they don't spend more time on that; I guess I'm still considering CalArts, but not so much for the "character animation program" as the arts program...but on the whole I kind of feel a bit lost, in terms of my decision regarding education, having read that; where the hell to consider now?

Anyway, rather divergent a message I suppose, but when considered in light of some of Kricfalusi's criticisms, maybe it explains just a bit about where he's coming from - it would seem to be a valid point, it just doesn't seem logical to devote only a year to something so important. But maybe their description on their webpage is misleading - I don't know, I sent a letter to the original poster asking for clarification.
As for JohnK's criticisms in general, I'm in abstract agreement with the principles at the heart of his arguments, but personally I think his time would be better spent actually creating the kind of perfect cartoon he keeps insisting he understands so well...

To the original point, what should a student's role in animation be, I think the role is two-sided: there's an art side where you can go crazy and do whatever because it's art and it's yours, and there's 'I want to obtain a job when I graduate and I know what positions are available to me.' Neither is good/bad, right/wrong. It just depends on your goal.

The title Animator is also different from Art Director or Character Designer. An animator may or may not be responsible for what an animation looks like, rather than emulating a provided style. This emulating of a style is exactly why a student would want to be aware of what has come before. When applying for a job if you're applying for an animator position you will be expected to show competence and technical execution in animating and your portfolio should reflect that. Whereas if you want to develop styles then that sounds more like an Art Director and you would want your portfolio to reflect accordingly.

it just doesn't seem logical to devote only a year to something so important.

Well, there's formal training, and then there's application of the principles learned, which takes place over the span of an artist's career. Learning what you need to know about anatomy can actually be done in a relatively short period of time; training your hand to get it down on paper is an ongoing thing, and no one but you can do that for you.

I think (John K's) time would be better spent actually creating the kind of perfect cartoon he keeps insisting he understands so well...

Couldn't agree more.

Lift drawing and animation

Uli Meyer recently Talked about his life drawing experience in his blog which Addlepate might find interesting.(I hope you don't mind my mentioning it, Uli!)

http://umbackagain.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, Feb 06, 2007

Addlepate wrote:
"Righto, so I just paid a peek to CalArts' website. What I don't get is why/how they seem - from their own description of the character animation course - to cram life drawing principles into a single year."

That isn't right at all. They have life drawings classes all four years. It's a big part of the program. In addition to the regular life drawing classes that you must take they also have a life drawing workshop on the weekend that is well attended. And animal drawing classes at the zoo.

Well clearly it's not "not right" that they seem to -- seemed like it to me, they only explicitly mention it when discussing the first year.
But I'm glad to hear that the impression was inaccurate.

Oh, and thanks for the link to the blog, neato stuff.

Oh yeah, and there's an interesting discussion that spawned from John K.'s rant going on between students on one Calarts student's blog...

http://clockroom.blogspot.com/2007/02/calarts-style-john-k.html

-moot

I've read John Kricfalusi's blog for a while now and I have to admit that I like his opinions less and less. The trouble is, he raises many valid points worth thinking about, the CalArts discussion being one at its very core, yet he peppers them so thoroughly with his own artistic view which seemingly doesn't allow for anything that isn't either created by him or inspired by pre-70s stuff! He moved into an animation ivory tower to crap on the heads of everybody walking by from its safety and that's the kind of ego-thing which I can absolutely not stand.

I suppose I'm a little too used to most grown adult people trying to substantiate their arguments; if he feels that's not necessary, simply take all the energy you were going to use to slap him and transfer it into being happy you don't have to be him.

Most of the semi recent Cal Arts alumni I know have a much more graphic/"retro" style. Alumni like Craig McCracken, and Genndy Tartakovsky.

While I appreciate John K's style, I've never been a JK fan. After reading some of his post I get the sense that he's just bitter that he and his work isn't worshiped by the Cal Arts school.

Aloha,
the Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

I've been checking his blog from time to time as well.

I have to admit, a lot of what he's saying really speaks to me. A lot of his sentiments cause something primal to stir in the back of my head that gets all excited and worked up and yells, "Yeah! That's right! Bartender! Leave the bottle!"

But, I'm afraid like most people who are smart and talented and feel like the world and work that they love are going to the crapper, he tends to overstate things. And in doing that, he alienates the very people he needs to convince.

I think he's probably right and there is a CalArts style. Just like there's probably a Sheridan style or a SCAD style. But, that's not bad.

What I got from what he was saying (and I'm a little nuts, so I'm probably wrong) was that the problem comes when people learn a certain style, and then never change, never question, stop learning, never evolve. Does that make sense? I don't know...

John K

If you look at John K's blog, he always posts lots of examples to reinforce (and support) his points. The message is to encourage animation beginners to learn solid drawing and animation fundamentals. He doesn't push his own style--actually his complaint is always that everyone is focused on learning a style instead of principles.

As for how much his ego gets into it; I don't see it as much as other people seem to. You may be reacting to his personal style of communication. (remember, a person's tone is notoriously hard to pin down in online form--try writing something sarcastic then see what people thought you meant). His points are usually pretty correct. He'll talk about people imitating his style (or what they think is his style), but I don't find that egomanical--it's true.

If anything, his blog is less about himself and more of a eulogy for the golden age of animation. When he points out that nobody is doing anything that looks as good as the 40's WB cartoons, you can't argue with it can you? Nobody can seem to do that anymore; nobody is teaching how to. Those cartoons are classic--always funny and beautiful to watch. I think Genndy Tartakovsky is talented, but I can watch a "Dexter's Lab" once, whereas I can watch "What's Opera, Doc?" over and over.

Ted Nunes - www.tedtoons.com

I have two minds on this one--both meet at the nexus of getting work.
It assumes that the aspiring talents seels a career in the animation biz.

One is that you can blaze your own trail, do things your own way and perhaps suffer because you do not fit into what the studios or the service work demands. You'll make your own statement, push your own style.....but if no-one is receptive to it--where do you go?
It can be really had to feed yourself and pay rent this way, but if it pays out the rewards can be very great indeed.

Two is that you can gear your abilities to be flexible, because in the day-to-day world of animation, you'll be doing service work and styles with studios whose foundations are built on those Disney/Warners styles and their endless deriviatives. BTW, service work is just a really broad term that I'm using to suggest work, being anything from in-house projects to out-sourced work that you folks do and then ship back.
Being comfortable in those kinds of "commercial" styles will probably keep food on the table and rent paid with less risk than being a maverick doing something different.

Most folks I know of/about are journeymen artists, going from project to project and studio to studio, and they tend to share the attributes of number two moreso than number one.

The thing is that John K came from the second example himself, before he gained the chutzpah to attempt the first.

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

If you don't think a certain way, you can't pretend to rationalize why other people do. You have no basis for it. In the moment, you'll see your model of the world and everyone else theirs. Leave it at that; trying to bridge that reeks of insecurity or worse, of unfounded arrogance.

When he points out that nobody is doing anything that looks as good as the 40's WB cartoons, you can't argue with it can you?

I think this is a false argument, despite how frequently it surfaces. It's simply a different era, with different requirements, different budgets, and different structures.

Cartoons made for TV are different than cartoons made for theaters, and always have been. For proof you don't need to look any further than the careers of Hanna and Barbera. Tom and Jerry cartoons are gorgeous and contain some of the best full animation ever done, but they were theatrical. The demands of TV animation caused a major gear shift in their design style and production.

I am responding as a consumer, rather than an artist or professional. When I first viewed Ren and Stimpy I saw it as sort of an underground comic, the product of a drug influenced young male, that appealed to the same market.

My question would be... should this be a standard that the animation community should attempt to emulate. Not for my viewing pleasure. I'd rather watch Disney or WB fare.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

False argument?

Well sure, there is no doubt that budgets are a factor in frame rates and in-beweens (which sort of ties those cartoons to their time) but it's a simple statement: those cartoons exhibit a higher degree of drawing skill and a firmer grasp of good animation principles than most of what you see out there today (I'd say anything--but I won't pretend to be up on everything that's out there).

Television-versus-features; style-versus-style is beside the point. Principles is the thing. Animation AND design.

Hanna-Barbera is a whole other, long topic, but their earliest TV cartoons were still based on good animation fundamentals and had great character designs despite the budget. The changes in style and abandonment of, well, animation, weren't solely because of budget other constraints of tv.

Different styles are great, but my eyes literally slip off the tv screen on some shows. There'll be an edgy design style but no composition. Some cartoons just feel like being stabbed in the eyeballs. Stop stabbing me in the eyes!!!

Picasso knew the principles of design before he started breaking them. People still like looking at his stuff.

As for Pat's Ren and Stimpy question, I would say the style of it is not to be emulated if it's not to your taste (not mine either, frankly). But they ARE great examples of creative, cartoony cartoons using good animation principles, just done on a tv budget.

Ted Nunes - www.tedtoons.com

The changes in Hanna-Barbera's style from T&J to the TV work had everything to do with the budget and time constraints of TV. They both discussed this in their respective autobiographies. I agree with you that the design and animation fundamentals are there in their early TV work.

Sorry, but TV-versus-theater (not feature; never said feature) is at the heart of the issue, and can't simply be ignored or shunted off to the side simply because it doesn't fit one's position. Maybe it's not apples-and-oranges, but it's sure granny-smith-and-red-delicious ;)

I am responding as a consumer, rather than an artist or professional. When I first viewed Ren and Stimpy I saw it as sort of an underground comic, the product of a drug influenced young male, that appealed to the same market.

My question would be... should this be a standard that the animation community should attempt to emulate. Not for my viewing pleasure. I'd rather watch Disney or WB fare.

Heh, well I can reasonably say for sure that the only drug that influenced anything on the Ren & Stimpy cartoons was caffiene pills. At least that's the only thing I ever saw being used at the studio where I worked on that series.

And some of the best animation was done by a woman, too!

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

My wife and I were talking about this last night - we were watching some old black and white Mickey Mouse cartoons, and some of the action in them was pretty surreal. We immediately went to "what were these guys on?", and then realized what a sad statement that really is.

We were essentially saying that no mere flight of fancy or use of imagination could possibly come up with this stuff unless mind-altering chemicals were involved. Unfortunately, it's an all-too typical (and automatic) response these days, and really is an insult to the people who created this stuff. They may in fact have been "on something", but to assume they were is jumping to some pretty big conclusions.

Not directed at you, Phacker. Just a general comment, since the subject came up...

Wowzers, what a jerk I was in my last post, sorry. Anyway, I've read up on CalArts some more, checked out what other students are doing, and I've absolutely fallen in love with the place, forget I said anything. :)