There appears to be a trend of almost ideological proportions going on in the broader animation business at the moment, and one I find a little disturbing because I see it as highly counterproductive in its most extreme outcroppings. Maybe this general notion of “Old School vs. New School” has its roots in the inane “2D vs. 3D” debate. What’s certain for me personally, however, is that it’s often mostly inane.
Of course there’s nothing wrong with remembering what made animation as an art form great and it is thoroughly desirable that the old qualities be preserved and developed further. Where I draw a line, however, is when positions reach a deadlock and don’t grant the other front any leeway at all. Aggressive bickering and flame wars ensue in ways suggesting that even though it is purportedly about “art”, what it really is about is ego.
I like to believe, maybe wrongfully so, that I don’t have much of an artistic ego. Animation is a job first and foremost. It’s a job that I like, true, that’s a perk, and one that not everybody is cut out for – but then again, it’s not the greatest thing to do on this world. Granted, there’s a LOT of animated crap out there – but I’m rather convinced my inability to take mortal offence in anything not living up to the standards I'm used to makes me an uncritical cop-out. There was a time when I categorically hated anime but I’ve learned to live with the phenomenon and not all of its influences are bad. Same deal with 3D.
So, what with all the new technologies and influences in the animated sector, does the art, or rather craft, need a new self-image? And if so, must it really be one of two extremes?
In my opinion that whole old VS new is a product being generated by parents, marketing, and how this is all influencing the young. Even that statement is not right because I have meet people of all ages that either are in destine of the old ways or are hold it in reverence.
There is a lot of the old animation that I do not care for but there is a lot of it that I like. The same is true for what is being produce now.
Just what would a new self image be when it comes to an art form?
I'm not really sure what you're talking about regarding "old school" versus "new school." Are you talking about technique? Design? Style?
As for Wontobe's point about older animation compared to new - it's the same as live action. The stuff from the past that's good survives and continues to be shown today; the not-so-good falls into obscurity (and $1 DVD bins). The same is not true for new cartoons; the good and bad are both available at the same time. This makes it seem like the work from the past was better in comparison.
I'm not sure if what I'm about to contribute to this will actually FIT correctly within then topic, but I'll give it a go.
Right now, I feel like I'm sitting squarely in the middle of the process of transitioning from 2D work to 3D. The job I'm on now is requesting I use some software that will require the end product be used in a digital manner. Not a problem, most of my 2D work in recent years has been used that way.
I can still DO the work itself in 2D even, and actually intend to for a while longer, and import the pencil and paper images into the software.
I can, at almost any time, make a full transition and abandon drawing on paper ,and using just the software.
But.......
But I don't think I'm going to.
I've spent the last couple of days using the software, and looking at it objectively and with an eye to how it solves problems and addresses needs.
Its a highly regarded programme, industry standard in fact..........but in my estimation, for MY needs and my end-use........it comes up a bit wanting.
Simply put, it doesn't do everything it appears to need to do.
Now, I', half-wondering if there's a few add-ons coming, or some addition functions I'm not aware of........both are possible........even probable.
But for me, based on my initial look at the thing......I'm STILL going to have to draw out my work on paper to depict certain functions properly, functions that the software does not (yet) cover or address.
So, in effect........I'm staying old-school.
In effect, I HAVE TO stay old-school- if I'm to do my work properly and provide the kinds of material my client seeks.
I have to use the limits of the software, and work around those limitations.
In this case, for new-school to be the thing.......that software CANNOT have such limitations.
Now, granted it already provides quite a few additional other functions and capabilities that "old-school" work methods don't have. But in my case, it makes the "other guy's" job easier than it makes mine. I still have to do some things the way I have always done them, so his needs can be met.
The thing is, the client is INSISTING on using this software, on having the folks who work on the material at this stage use it. So I have to comply, but I can still produce the work I always have, albeit now with a few more steps and technology involved.
"New-school" hasn't won out in any sense in my case, because I still have to do things "old school" in order to get the job done.
To my mind, if there is a difference in camps in this, its coming from people that are not fully thinking through just how all this stuff is being used--at least from where I'm sitting.
For me, the argument is simple: the technology has not yet become as easy to use or as capable as the older methods ( in some respects) so those old school methods are still going to be used by me to get the job done.
There's a lot of lateral movement in terms of processes, but not a great deal of advancement. Truth be told, IMO..........we still need both schools of approach, and will for quite some time.
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)