graph-o-mat 1.0

… what do we do if those proposed trends (quite obviously) aren’t happening? Embrace the loud & chaotic? After all, it seems to be the fashionable thing to do — and it’s fun, as well (at least for a while).

Comments(0)

While I am currently reading a book consisting of letters written in Germany (or what was to become Germany in 1871) from 1750 to 1950 (“Deutsche Briefe 1750 - 1950″; S. Fischer), I become painfully aware of the lack of depth im most of today’s animation/computer graphics. It seem to me that many artists neglect (willfully or not) the achievements in the visual arts that have been made during the last say, two hundred years. Instead, they are starting anew, but on a comparably low (and superficial) level.

As I wrote in a previous post, it seems to me that one of the reasons for this imho very unfortunate development is, that especially younger artists are not that familiar with art (and here particularly painting) from previous centuries. Another problem is imho the lack of a tradition comparable to the one in painting. (What inevitably leads to the question inhowfar the achievements in painting can serve as a “model” for computer graphics.) Then there is (at present) the lack of wider recognition of computer graphics as an art form comparable to painting, sculpting, etc..

When taking a look especially at today’s animation, I often encounter works that are (compared to established art forms) superficial, at times even adolescent (especially in the selection of the themes). Very rarely do I have the feeling that here is a mature artist expressing him- or herself.

One example of animation that stands out to me (both technically and artistically) is the Björk video of “All Is Full Of Love”, and even if the context of this video is commercial, to me, it nonetheless has a poetry and depth one rarely encounters in computer graphics/post-production. Another example would be the video of “Frozen” by Madonna, made by the same director (Chris Cunningham).

Ok, this is not “serious art” in the sense the work of Leonardo da Vinci is, to take but one example, nor does it pretend to be, but imho this could be a start. The technique is there — but where is the van Gogh of computer graphics, or its Charlie Parker?

Related: “The art connection”

Comments(0)

In his article “CG on a Budget: A Zen Art “, J. Paul Peszko wrote

“Unlike feature animation, where major studios spend money hand over fist trying to outdo one another [ … ]”

— Quote © Copyright 2007 by J. Paul Peszko/Animation World Network. —

and this is imho exactly the state of affairs Jean Detheux complained about in “Notes from the Underground”. Although I do not agree 100% with what he wrote (I just can’t help but finding certain fx cool), and although it is imho not the point to abandon the superficial altogether, I also perceive a gradual demise of the “substance” in much (not all) of today’s visual fx/animation, if not in our culture in general. What I particularly find so annoying about this tendency are a) fx for the sake of fx, and b) the “loud” approach we encounter so often (especially in advertising; this is what I personally call the “smiling banana effect”).

Is subtlety out of style? Not necessarily, but it would require courageous (and preferably independent) directors who know about the possibilities of state-of-the-art visual fx/animation and how to use them properly. We really have had enough of superficial fx by now. This is not a contradiction to what I wrote farther above; my point is simply, not to abandon depth altogether and to venture into new, yet unexplored territory instead—and not just technically. Directors such as Alfred Hitchcock made it clear that it is indeed possible to combine avantgarde art (“Spellbound”; “Psycho”; “The Birds”) and financial success.

Comments(0)

Yesterday, when surfing the web site of Animation World Network, I stumbled upon a series of articles written by Jean Detheux, entitled “Notes from the Underground”. What’s interesting about this: The author is a painter from Belgium, who started working with digital media because he became allergic to paint. Besides, the title of the series is a reference to the book of the same title by Dostoevsky, which in turn was one of the influences on screenwriter/director, Paul Schrader, when writing his script for Martin Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver” (1976).

This is also interesting because I have been preoccupied with this very topic (lack of substance in animation & computer graphics) myself for some time, and the reason for this is basically that, although technically-wise, computer graphics have advanced amazingly in the course of the last say, ten years, what I personally am desparately missing is the artistic depth in digital art.

Maybe this is sort of a viscious circle: Artists working with traditional media perceive digital art as superficial and therefore hesitate using it; on the other hand, (often younger) digital artists don’t have the background of the former; thus, their work often lacks the depth we admire so much in traditional art forms such as painting.

Be it as it may, here’s the link to the very first article of the series, entitled “Notes from the Underground Part One — Animation: Prozac or Kyosaku?”.

Related: “Animation as an art form”

Comments(0)