Animation Aesthetics Assignment 1

Question one on the article by Furniss, “Introduction to Animation Studies”: How would you apply Norman McLaren’s definition to the animation of today? Which he defines as, “Animation is not the art of drawings that move but the art of movements that are drawn; what happens between each frame is much more important than what exists on each frame; Animation is therefore the art of manipulating the invisible interstices that lie between the frames.” Also what flaws can be found in this definition when considering animation as a whole and not just its production?

Answer: In applying this definition to animation today it constricts the genre as a whole. There are so many types of animation that fit this definitions framework well. Those of video game animation where what was done to create it means more than the frames themselves (in many cases). Still the definition doesn’t accurately convey all aspects of animation, while it is a great definition it is lacking. The definition applied to a lot of animation today doesn’t give credit to what an animator actually puts on screen. It does however define the physical act of creating animation but not animation itself. It’s a very cold almost mechanical definition of creation. Animation is not just a process of creating the final image but what is conveyed in that image. I think what is shown in images and dialogue is just as, if not more important that the creation itself. The definition isn’t in any way inapplicable to animation today but so many animators want the audience to be transported to another realistic world. For example Pixar, they try to create a realistic believable world though the experience of watching animation. In the article Furniss states, “…one might consider the way in which character design gives meaning to a work, or perhaps the use of colour and music in production.” The quote supports that the actions of the animator conveyed in each frame of film are important and thought about. The animator has a vision that they want to represent and if the audience is busy thinking about how it was created they miss what was created.

Question two from the article by Manovich, “Digital Cinema and the History of the Moving Image”: In what ways have animation and cinema become intertwined in order to have the type of cinema we have today? For example how has animation enhanced cinema and how has cinema helped animation further develop it into what it is today.

Question three from the article by Roush, “Second Earth: How second Life and Google Earth are merging into One Metaverse”: In your opinion how would a “Metaverse” effect the world today? And what kind of role does animation play in creating this world?