Arthur Metcalf, Pat Smith, Amid Amidi, and Noelle Vaccese at Kodak. I had an interesting conversation with Amid over drinks last night. We were talking about the difference between works of art that are generally (and unfortunately) clumped together. I pointed out the difference between Jamie Hewlett and Craig
Mccracken (see image below). Craigs work will most likely be dropped by art history, but Jamies will continue because his art is solid and not dependent solely on stylistic principles or trends. I love Warhol, but you can't categorize him with a master painter, just like you can't categorize Hisko Hulsing or Borge Ring with Don Hertzfelt (although, i think don can draw way better than he gives himself credit). This all came up after we attended the Kodak screening put on by Signe Baumane,
there were such different films all being appreciated on the same level, which is strange, being that some films are crappy gag driven entertainment(produced in a matter of days), and some are highly crafted art. The highlight of the night was all the ooing and ahhing about how difficult and time consuming rotoscoping in flash is. As my traditional animation buddy Guy Barely would say, "wtf man".
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Solid Drawing is the difference....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
one extra note: what Don doesn't accomplish with draftmanship, he makes up for with the craft of film.
"How many frames did that film take?"
What kind of question is that?
Why does that even matter?
It was a good screening but I felt those kind of questions would've been better for after the screening in the lobby.
i concur Dan, i think there was a moment last night where the questions went to a bad place.
I also agree with you, Pat, that the films were all very different. the only common thread was that most of them had dark themes.
I was also disappointed with the RSVP bull. Last year the screening was packed and it was much better. AND beverages should be allowed inside. come on people.
I've had this feeling for the last few months. That I haven't really taken the time to focus on being a good draftsman. That's become a main focus for me.
I agree with Dan Pinto. Who cares about how many frames a film takes. Who the hell takes the time to determine that. How about seeing if its a good film. Andy and Carolyn are lucky with their film, because the content of it took up a lot of the attention, and managed to maintain an impression with the audience that didn't involve just the technical level.
Good screening last night.
I'm curious, what film (or show) was being talked about in regards to rotoscoping in Flash?
"Solid drawing is the difference" in what though. Hertzfeldt's drawings may be crude but he says more with those drawings than somebody like Alexander Petrov ever has with his slick human figures and noodled rendering skills. Does it matter if your technique is weaker than your concept, if your concept is brilliant and perfectly suited to the technique? I'm not entirely sure.
hey ward, the flash roto'd film was andy and carolyn london's new film that premiered in the hamptons film festival. "letter to colleen", i think. it's an amazing film, content wise.
amid, like i said last night, it's the killer combo of technique and content that will move it into the realm of art history. i think that some of these "crude" films will be simply written off as "really good entertainment", but not works of art. I love arthur's film "Bubblewrap" but is it a work of art? no. it's just funny as hell. this can easily slip into art vs. entertainment discussion.
Hnmm, I agree with Amid here. I also think where some people miss the boat with Hertzfeldt is that his drawings are supposed to look child-like. It's not a lack of craft, it's an important choice. His movies simply wouldn't be as funny or poignant or touching if they were photoreal. And of course, the fact that his filmmaking craft is head and shoulders above everyone else in the field (sound, camera, editing), it at times elevates the whole thing to something profound. I've always thought of him more as a great filmmaker first and an animator second, almost by default.
I think the draftsmanship Pat writes about is actually overrated when it comes to making a good film or telling a good story. Look at graphic novels and comic strips. There are hundreds of very funny, personal, and amazing independent stories being told in print now, yet nobody sniffs very much about how slick they're drawn, as long as they're good. Heck, Charles Schulz is hailed as the beloved genius of the cartooning field, yet he just drew kids with circle heads and dot eyes. Why should we judge animation drawing any harsher or differently? Draftsmanship only goes so far if you don't have any other talents to back it up.
Jules - i largely agree with you as well, but to use comics as an example, how does one compare Schulz, who was brilliant conceptually but limited in technique, to artists like Winsor McCay, Ronald Searle and Walt Kelly, who were masters of both concept and form. Is Schulz worthy of the same respect? Indeed, he may be, but then does that render the whole notion of skillful draftsmanship worthless? This blog post by David Apatoff addresses the exact issue we're discussing here and there are no easy answers.
Variety's chief film critic just included Hertzfeldt's "Everything will be Okay" in his year-end list of the "Best movies of 2007". Yep, an animated short listed alongside features like "There will be Blood"!
I think Don H's work has taught us time and time again how little traditional draftsmanship matters versus having truly original ideas. Hertzfeldt's the best writer in animation today and that's done more to propel his last three movies into the "hall of art history" than any other factor. You forget that they're stick figures after thirty seconds. That takes tremendous talent. Not to mention he happens to animate them beautifully.
To Amid's question, of course Schulz is worthy of my same respect as those other artists. They're all wonderful. Can't they all be equally wonderful? :) I don't think there's any way to quantify them and compare talents like those. It's like comparing Rembrandt to Monet. They're wonderful in their own ways, they just approach their work from very different angles. I'd like to see more of that variety in animation, actually. How boring if everybody drew exactly the same and went to the same school of "draftsmanship"!
If we're just talking about the drawings, I'd suggest that draftsmanship of course bears some importance, but not nearly as much as having an original style. Anybody can grind through art courses long enough to draw well, but you can't teach personality. Just look at the CG world right now. The worst CG animation often has the best "draftsmanship". :)
I understand your points, but at the end of the day, wouldn't you rather have a rembrandt than a Pollock??
and putski:
"Anybody can grind through art courses long enough to draw well"
Totally untrue.
I understand your points, but at the end of the day, wouldn't you rather have a rembrandt than a Pollock??
But why, Patrick? Does everything have to fall into the internet blog categories of "it ruled" or "it sucked"? Can't two totally different works of art co-exist meaningfully on their own terms? I can appreciate both artists for what they were doing. Art isn't about who has the coolest form, it's about personal expression.
It's not a competition. Comparing their craft is irrelevant: Those are two very different people expressing very different things about the world that they lived in. Just like all of those animators you listed, or dissed. "Solid drawing" is most certainly not the only difference, nor is it really an important difference. It's what the artist is trying to say with those drawings.
hi Jules, yes, i place higher value on particular artists. value is a straightforward thing to judge, and i will always put a rembrandt above a pollock. just as i will put Triplets above Simpsons (if i must).
but the original point of this entry was along the lines of what you say, that was that they shouldn't be clumped together and treated as the same thing.
I'm not a big fan of what artists "SAY" that's self indulgent. I'm more interested in what artists choose to portray or reflect back to us about our own world. one of my issues with modern art (allow me to generalize) is that it is not based on observation, but more with the self.
Putski - You're incorrect in saying that my comparison of Schulz to artists like McCay and Searle is like "comparing Rembrandt to Monet." Monet is an incredibly accomplished artist technically. He CHOSE to work in an impressionist style.
Schulz, on the other hand, is not a particularly disciplined artist. I've seen his non-Peanuts work and his entire body of work is technically crude. He could never be a Searle or McCay if he wanted to be because he is simply not the same caliber of graphic artist. We label him great purely because of his conceptual originality.
This constant devaluation of technique has led to a new breed of artists who believe that they can compensate for their lack of skill with strong ideas. On rare occasions it works, such as in the case of Schulz. Like I say, I may label Schulz great, but in my book, Searle and McCay will always be a cut above because of their abilitly to execute both technically and conceptually.
I didn't speak up much last night during the conversation because I find myself with my feet in the lo-fi comedy gutter and my ambitions in the lovely, fully rendered clouds. My stance on art and such has always been very simple -- if you stumbled on a piece (a thing, it is just a thing) on the street would you pick it up? I certainly would pick up the Rembrandt, but the Pollock is just so much splattered drop-cloth to me. When it comes to these films I will pick up and rewatch both the lo-fi comedy of, say, South Park and the wonderful, careful draftsmanship of Fantasia. Dangerous as it is to say so, I think you have to accept what amounts to a market approach in even "the arts." As filmmakers we may be trying to express ourselves (yack) but I think, more importantly, we are trying to please an audience. I will gladly concede that my film 'Fantaisie in Bubblewrap' is no great work of art (I guess it's "crappy gag driven entertainment"). It is not beautiful. It is not a feat of technique. But if the point of making a film is to please an audience than I am satisfied with it.
Pat, you and I screened just a week ago with 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' and you made a point which I think is maybe missing in this whole draftsmanship debate. "[Fear and Loathing] is what we have to compete with, not fucking Jungle Book." I don't think there was a single drawing in that film. Draftsmanship is important when it is important. But we have to accept that beyond a tiny clique of animators (whom, I would add, we slagged off in the comments of this blog a couple days ago), technique is secondary to joy or humanity. This technique business reminds me of something I heard regarding film editors (I've forgotten the source though it's a hell of a good point and deserves credit, mea culpa) -- you don't notice good editing. If an editor has done his job right you don't see the cuts. It just flows. It seems to me that our techniques just have to fit. They are serving the story or the character or the action or the gag. It just comes down to a means of communication.
If a film's objective is beauty, it should be suffused with beauty. If it is action, it should be action-packed. If it is comedy, it should make you laugh.
The trouble, of course, is that in animation we are all lumped together. Brad Bird said, I'm going to say he said it on NPR's 'Fresh Air' "Animation is not a genre! It's a medium. The next person who asks me what it's like working in the genre of animation is going to get punched."
That's a lot of words but I just want to add one more thing, technique is not just drawing (and this is coming from a guy who's been drawing one (1) nose since September for a total of 50-60 hours). Timing requires technique. Writing requires technique. Audio engineering requires technique. Let's not get reductive and not stroke our pencil-callused fingers too fondly.
Amid, you seem to suggest that "Peanuts" would have been "better" if only Schulz could draw better. What a scary thought :( There is no way to improve on "Peanuts". It's like saying Michael Bolton's music is "better" than John Lennon's music because he "sings better". You are only focusing on the sound of someone's voice and are missing the melody and the lyrics.
I find heart and soul in Schulz's imperfections. It's what makes us human and it's how we relate to the tragedies of Charlie Brown. Similarly, suggesting a Hertzfeldt film would be "better" without his stick figures is like saying punk rock would be better if they didn't scream so much :) You can't separate these things or you miss the entire point. It's a chosen style that's inseparable from the content, just like Pollock and Monet and whomever. We can't live in a world where everything is a perfectly rendered CG model.
Amid, I like Winsor McCay, I've studied his strips and his animation, but I'm trying to think if he ever made me laugh, or whether I ever felt any sort of emotive connection to him. I don't think so. Personally I admire him, but I don't "feel" him. But I've laughed at "Peanuts" thousands of times, and through his work I feel as though Schulz has been one of my best friends for most of my life. I'm not going to fall into the trap of saying that's "better", but in this comparison the form means nothing to me and Schulz is the more successful artist in touching me. And circles and dots are all he needed. I think what you call "crude" in Schulz and Hertzfeldt I find beautiful and even elegant. There is hurt and joy in these artists that I have not found in anyone else's work. Minimalism is very very difficult to pull off that well.
Patrick, of course drawing skills can be taught. Artists can be trained. I thought this was your central point, that these skills were undervalued and artists needed to study them harder? Walt Disney created a world class animation studio from scratch; he recruited curious amateur artists and trained the hell out of them into becoming the best in the world. Drawing is a learned skill, like cooking or architecture. Nobody's born a brilliant draftsman.
My belabored point is, of course the devaluation of technique is a terrible thing, you can't argue with that. But the devaluation of original thought and content worries me more. If a cartoon doesn't make us think, laugh, or cry, nobody cares how well (or how poorly) it was drawn.
Taking Arthur's post a step further, would South Park be a better show if it were animated like Fantasia? No, it'd be a worse show because it wouldn't be as funny.
Content must always dictate style and form.
good discussion kids.
i'm willing to be the jerk that puts fantasia above just about any other animated production in history (but i'm biased because i'm a classical music nut). and no, southpark would not work as fantasia, or course not. making people laugh isn't art, that's entertainment. and I personally will ALWAYS put art over entertainment.
the only reason i picked on your comment about being able to learn how to draw is that i sensed a demeaning tone to it. learning how to draw is the most difficult thing a person can set out to do, and it involves a world more than simply "art courses". it's a way of life, a fire in the belly, a religion.
this is EXACTLY the type of debate missing from animation functions and festivals!
Jules - I never suggested that Schulz's Peanuts would benefit from better drawing. I apologize if my comments seemed to indicate that because that wasn't my point.
But I also don't entirely agree with the sentiment that "There is no way to improve on Peanuts." For centuries, artists were able to find a balance between technique and concept. It's only from the early-20th century that the balance began to shifted disproportionately towards concept, often times with complete disregard for technical skill. It's certainly a fascinating topic with no clear-cut answers.
making people laugh isn't art, that's entertainment
I'm curious how you would define art? Comedy is definitely an art, and a real difficult one at that. Chaplin is as strong an artist in my book as Hitchcock.
Hiya, hope you don't mind a quick OT comment...Guy's last name is spelled Barely (not like the grain - sorry i'm a spelling nerd sometimes)...and i know he's a great draftsman because he's showed me his sketchbook. But I respect him more for the way he uses his drawing powers to create appealing characters in 3D and animate them very well. I've been responsible for polishing a couple of shots he animated and really appreciated a solid base to work off of. I think he'd probably rather draw rather than pull splines, but I'm glad he's able to rock his skills in the 3D medium.
You guys were talking off and on about draftsmanship and I'm curious to hear what you, Pat, have to say about the practice of draftsmanship among students (heck, I'd love to hear what anyone has to say about it among animators period). I'm curious because the more animators/animation students I meet, the more it seems many of them are studying from a fairly narrow school of draftsmanship: nine old men, manga, tex avery (20th century animation... especially the american school). I am frequently puzzled by "life drawing" portfolios that look like Disney character model sheets... i.e. NOT "life" drawings. Does/should this matter? To what extent do animation schools really encourage close study of broader schools of draftsmanship (Degas, African sculpture, children's drawings)? I certainly don't intend to be demeaning, modern american pop culture is great stuff in my book, and anyone who looks at my work might very well go "AHA! an American!" to which I'd say "DAMN STRAIGHT!" I'm not one to argue great technique = great art, though it sure seems to help... ya gotta be good at SOMEthing. I guess if I had to put my two cents in about where "great art" (I mean stuff that hits the hippocampus the hardest) comes from, it would be from an intensity in the work (funny stuff can have intensity, too!) and intensity frequently comes through diligent effort: something more committed than superficial curiosity and more sincere than high-minded stuffy academia... of which I am perhaps making myself a member with this post... for shame!
I totally concede that animation/art/things-that-are-worth-their-own-existence usually have a lot more going on in them then one nice bit of technique. I'm just curious what the practice of "learning to draw" usually looks like in an animation school.
Pat, if this is truly the kind of debate missing from animation festivals, I will now shed a ceremonial tear and comfortingly put my arm over your shoulder.
hi Tim,
A HA! yes. good question about where to study how to draw. because in my experience, a majority of art schools are simply NOT teaching it.
I love the nine old men, and other animation masters, BUT there's no substitute for learning from the classics. a great place to start is George Brigman, his book "Brigmans complete guide to drawing from life" is a must have. there are so many others, i think this would make a good blog entry.
if you're in the city, there are several private figure drawing places to go to that have really top notch anatomically minded teachers (ie Minerva Durham in soho), and if you're REALLY serious, the Grand Central Academy of Art offers classes that are just insane, Arthur Metcalf is currently taking one of them, taught by my studio mate Tony Curanaj (a classical painter).
i dont think that we have to decide if the idea or the draw is the more important piece of animation. i think its evident if there's no idea behind a film (no relevant how much time does the shot takes) than it's gonna be poor... but if theres no graphic level good enough, although it is needed than its gonna be poor in an other aspect. i think the a idealess movie is worse. patrcik u r right in that evident point the film is the best if its cool in every aspect, but the others are correct in saying not every shot needs to be rich in circumstances as much as a disney. "use the right tool for the right job" (konstantin bronzit is a good example i think. of course most of the times the ones that don't need nice graphic style, cause it wouldn't give them somethin plus, are predestinated to be a gag, which i have to admit is not art. but very important as well)
I've been wanting to comment on this discussion for a few days but havn't really been able to wrap words around what I've wanted to say, while avoiding being an echo of a number of other posts. So excuse this somewhat organized stream of consciousness,
I guess I just don't see why it all matters so much. It seems that the dispute is actually over two debates; good draftsmanship vs. poor draftsmanship, and art vs. entertainment.
It seems so silly to argue these points, because everyone just ends up talking circles around one another, and internet feelings get hurt.
I forget the syntax of the saying, but I've often heard people reference the importance of being able to say something in as few words as possible. If it only takes Don Hertzfeldt and Charles Schulz circles and dots to move an audience, why should that not be valued just as highly as someone whose work is meticulously rendered for hours on end? Does it not take just as much thought, ability and experience to convey emotion with two lines as it does twenty lines?
Bob Dylan and Johnny Cash are widely accepted as great songwriters, but does the fact that they rely heavily on common chord progressions make their musical contributions any less valid than the blistering chops of Yngwie Malmsteen and Joe Satriani? Of course not. Apples and oranges.
I've also often heard people rave about how brilliant of an animated character Gromit is because he's able to emote so well with his body language and eyebrow. Is this ability not an "art"? The Art or Not debate is so tired, its not worth getting into, I'm surprised you all don't know/think that. To assume that the quality of "Art" is dependent on the exhibited craftsmanship, is a poor choice. Its often harder to know what to leave out then it is knowing what to include. I know you're into street art Pat, do you necessarily put Banksy above Blu because his stencils appear more rendered?
While labels and standards are handy for putting together a program for an animation screening, there's really no need. I'm finishing up a stick figure film right now, which I believe I animated well, but will most likely be torn apart by the pro-draftsman folk, assuming any of you see it. While I do draw well in my life drawing class, the stick figure choice was made consciously for the piece. I hope it entertains you all.
good response taylor, wish i had read it earlier, my email notification is off lately... hmmm..
anyway, it's a good argument, i like the johnny cash example. but still.... at the end of the day, it's the guys that can draw that get the chicks.
cheers
pat
Post a Comment