Kill Your Television...

Jamie Wyeth was asked about a recent sale of one of his paintings to the actor Tom Arnold. He replied, "Who's Tom Arnold?" I think Mr. Wyeth spends much more time working than in front of the TV. Note to self.. Kill your television. It's a strange relationship to be working primarily for TV, but not watch it. I discontinued my cable TV this week, and I'm really thinking that I'm not missing out on much. I did, however, retain my netflix account. Here's a few thoughts provided by turnoffyourtv.com:

"I don't really watch television, and I make my living out of it. It's not out of any great principle. I work at it all day. I'm traveling, at night I'm going (to give) speeches. Other than watching sports and the news, I just don't watch it." -- Talk show host Jerry Springer

"American children and adolescents spend 22 to 28 hours per week viewing television, more than any other activity except sleeping. By the age of 70 they will have spent 7 to 10 years of their lives watching TV." -- The Kaiser Family Foundation

"You watch television to turn your brain off and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on." -- Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple Computer and Pixar

Admiring the Dapper Artists...

I was looking at this image of Winslow Homer (above left) the other day, and it struck me that we, as artists, just don't look as good as we used to. An individuals self worth is often gauged by the way they present themselves. Generally speaking, artists have historically been some of the most stylie people ever. Homer exemplifies what I'm talking about. A bit closer to home would be artists like Winsor Mccay (above right) and Walt Disney (middle). It seems to me that no matter what photo you see of these men, whether they were working or out on the town, they looked insanely stylish. I do know several artists today that seem to always look dapper, for example, animator John Canemaker (below left), seems to always be looking rad. Tom Otterness (below right) looks pretty good usually. But for the most part, artists these days seem to dress down. Maybe it doesn't matter.. I personally have my moments, but for the most part I'm just another skater turned painter, and I look like it. sigh. Yet another example how we're not as cool as our predecessors.

Bad Posture...beware!

Let's talk about posture.. fellow artists. A while back I worked with a very talented director, in the course of the time we worked together I visually noticed this poor posture, turning into a slouch, turning into an actual physical condition! I noticed it a few other times, especially with older artists. As I write this, i'm straightening up a bit... i'm not kidding.. we live our lives hunched over a canvas, computer screen, or drawing table... it could happen to you!!

Rant: Trying not to turn too much inward...

One of the things I struggle with is the temptation to look inward, at yourself, and confuse that with something artists should represent. There is a killer combo of personal life's experience and solid observation. But when you fall into the trap of thinking it's all about you, your drawings become weak, and you enter that depressing era of modern art, where it takes a cadre of art historians and critics to tell you how important the work is. This comic strip by John Campbell sums that up, check out his other work as well, good stuff. As artists, our first responsibility is to represent the natural world we live in, or those we live with, and to express that in emotional terms that others can relate to. Getting lost in self indulgence is something that happens way too often in fine art.

Rant: Escape the Echo Chamber...

I was reminded about this idea when "pierce sisters" wasn't nominated for an oscar. Everyone was so shocked, since it had won every major animation festival. A similar thing happened with Joanna quinns "dreams and desires" (another fav of mine) which wasn't even nominated! Instead of blaming the academy (which people LOVE to do), i think you need to realize that animation is often an echo chamber, and what you may think is common knowledge, happens to be only common to animation people (an incredibly small, often lame, bubble). I believe in the effectiveness of finding other crowds, and "crossing over" to them, diversitize. Most people, even artists, don't know what Aardman is, or Plympton, or glen keane. That's just a fact. and actually, there's even echo chambers within the industry, for example, i could not tell you a single creator of any cartoon network show, they don't cross over to my independent world. As an animator, most of us are qualified to dabble into many fields. ie, I'm not a huge fan of Gary Basemans art, but he excels at being diverse, working in many facets of the art world.

Rant: Persepolis should have won the Oscar...

Was I the only one that was disappointed about Ratatouille winning over Persepolis? Persepolis is a ground breaking film, the subject matter is serious and educational (it's practically a doc for those of us who don't know anything about the fascinating history of Iran) and is delivered in a heartfelt and entertaining way. The film is also incredibly timely, in a day where tensions are so high due to a clash of civilizations. It really proves that a medium that is too often dismissed as "for kids" can carry a mature theme, even with a limited style. btw, there's some great animation in this film, it's basic, but nicely timed. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend checking it out. Oh, and totally not related, but the director Marjane Satrapi is a total babe.

A Rant: "Story" isn't all that....

Nobody ever challenges the idea that if you don't have a good story, you can't make a good film. This is not true. There are elements just as important, and in my opinion, even more important than story. I'm talking about CHARACTER, CONCEPT, and IMAGERY. I love a good story as much as anyone else, but it's simply not the only key ingredient. Perhaps this is yet another influence from me getting into fine art; painters do not use story, they use mostly concept and imagery. And i've found that my favorite films and animation are of this same spirit.
Above, an image from one of my favorite films of all time, Ron Frick's "Baraka", a film that has no story, just beautiful mind blowing IMAGERY of our world and it's people. Pictured above is the memorable "Kecak" Balinese dance sequence. haven't seen this film? run to netflix.
Above is a still from Richard Linklater's "Dazed and Confused" a great movie that has no real story whatsoever, yet you just don't want it to end, you're attached to the CHARACTERS, you can just keep watching them, doesn't matter what their doing. it's the type of film like "Trees Lounge" where you feel like the movie is still going, playing out right along with the lives of the characters.
And of course, a still from Fantasia, several individual sections of this masterpiece have strong story (sorcerers apprentice, night on bald mt), but the element that makes Fantasia epic is it's connection to the music, and the CONCEPT of great classical music guiding the IMAGERY as a whole. I'm thinking about this stuff a lot lately, because i'm neck deep in a film that is dependent on imagery and music (Masks), and ironically, i think people will probably say it has the best "story" of any of my films. It's an easy mistake to confuse "Story" with "Concept". more on that another time.

A Rant: The Value of Art....

photo: Michelangelo's Pieta, Leonardo self portrait, Jackson Pollock, John Singer Sargent, Sponge Bob, and Glen Keane's immortalized Beast.
If you stumbled on a material piece of art on the street would you stop to admire it or maybe pick it up? does it provoke serious and quality thought? Is it beautiful (even in a horrific or disturbing sense) Is it made to stand the test of time, will it last? are the materials valuable? is the content timeless, or will it only be understood within the context of what is currently in fashion? Is it created with expert craftsmanship by an artist that knows and has studied the medium? In this way, do we admire the craftsmanship of this piece? Does it add or build upon to a rich tradition of thoughtfulness and quality?
Or, is it pretentious, meaningless, self-indulgent crap that has been deemed important by a cadre of "experts" or critics that obviously know way more than you, setting the importance and price. Or, does it exploit human tendencies to be drawn toward the overtly sexual, controversial, outrageous, or the "candylike shinyness" of new technologies (that often don't look all the great after a while). Is it purely entertainment, meant to be consumed, chewed up and spewed out in a fit of laughter? the only resemblance of aesthetic being it's ability to entertain and charm (has it's place perhaps, but can hardly be viewed as a lofty achievement)

Solid Drawing is the difference....

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".

This poster bothers me....

I don't get offended. being offended is for the weak and unsure. but there's something basically wrong with the movie posters covering nyc right now, for the film "Cloverfield". I love disaster flicks as much as the next fella, but this imagery is too reminiscent(and exploitive) of that sept. day that still looms in my, and every other new yorkers mind. those of us who stood on rooftops and witnessed the unthinkable. unclaimed cars and airplane parts, there is still plaster debris wedged into the corners of the studios fire escape. so why does a filmmaker feel the need to depict ground zero in ashes again? this blog says it better than i can. and also, a great article in the New York Times. I don't mind movies that depict the destruction of NYC, it's just that this one happens to use the exact location of the attacks. or maybe i should just chill out and realize that it's only entertainment. The Boston Globe said it best:

“The best thing for New York might be the sight of King Kong tramping through the streets of Manhattan on his way to a fateful appointment at the top of the Empire State Building,” Mr. Page wrote. “For if there is one thing that symbolizes New York’s pre-eminence, it is that so many still want to imagine the city’s end.”

Why Skate Culture is Important...

psmith frontside at the "dept of skateboarding" bowl in PDX, during Platform Animation Festival. Around the time competition screenings were being shown.

The doc "Dogtown and Z-Boys" is a key film to understand why skateboarding is important. Skating has had a major impact on the contemporary world. Overstated? I think I can hear laughter. Culture and skating have been fused since the Z Boys(a group of skaters in the 70's) chose not to follow conventions of a typical sport. They added a rebellious punk aspect that just wasn't there. To them it was a lifestyle, like art or surfing, or rock and roll. Rollerskating didn't have a group like the Z Boys, and look where that ended up.

Every time I go to an animation festival i think about this, i mean, what a bunch of dorks! (gen. speaking of course), talking about pitching, and sponge bob. Why don't animators talk about Sargent, Stravinsky, Keaton or Kubrick, or the stones? This is why I dig animators like Hisko Hulsing and Danny Antonucci, these guys are real artists. Fully engaged in a culture while working incredibly hard to impact art history. These guys, like the Z boys, know whats up, they're just naturally just cool.

Random Rant: Titanic, A Theory

A quick break from fine art or animation today. I had a conversation over drinks that disturbed me the other night. I met a "Titanic Hater". I have a theory about people who say they don't like the movie titanic. Simply put: They are Lying! that is a hell of a movie, Hollywood at it's best. I think it's sad when people can't open their mind to something just because it's a hit with the statuesque. Is your desire to be an individual actually convoluted your mind into not liking something of true substance? not liking something for the reason that it's accepted by the majority isn't being an individual, it's being close minded, and it's sad because you really miss out on some fantastic work.