God I wish I could figure out how to video diary this.

From the beginning of this article I was blown away by how much truth it spoke about the world of animation. Before I started the film studies program here at UNCW, if asked to describe animation, I would most certainly have described some two-bit Disney scenario. I believe I honestly thought that cell-animation and computer animation were the only two viable forms of animation. Even though I now know that there are many variations of the craft, I still conjure images of Bugs Bunny when I think of animation. I believe I was exposed to this “look” at such an early age and for so long, that it is hard to sub-consciously change my perception. I think the same happens when people are exposed to experimental film. For so long we were told that Hollywood and the Hollywood style of narrations where the only acceptable form. When one is then exposed to animation the experience can be extremely shocking.
I agreed with Wells that its necessary to point out that even though the narration in animation is by its very own nature fantastical and boundless that there is still orthodox and unorthodox techniques. It is interesting to note that, as a child, I never though animations like Looney Tunes were narratives told in a basic linear style. There are beginning points and endpoints with drama in between. They seemed so fantastical and hyper-active, that I just didn’t consider them narratives. Its odd to think that animators sat around and story boarded the entire plot of these shows that felt crazy and wild.
Wells lists the attributes of animation on the Orthodox form which is pretty enlightening. I never thought about how orthodox animations like Disney films do have a lot of continuity and figures. Abu the monkey in Aladdin always functions in monkey-form. Also, when things fall they really follow the laws of gravity (well for the most part).
I remember watching an animation in Dr. Kreul’s class. It was a Daffy Duck cartoon where he draws attention to the fact that he is an animation. You see the animator’s pen and brush. It was very cool. I remember noting that I had only ever seen one other orthodox cartoon that called attention to its device - it was a Betty Boop cartoon. The Daffy Duck one was much better in my opinion. Wells notes that in orthodox animation it is rare that it would draw attention to its own construction. It is very rare to see an animation call attention to itself in that way. Something odd that I just noted in Wells writing, is that orthodox animation follows continuity in its drawings. This is just like in Hollywood narratives. Animations never jump the line! I love it.
Ah! When I read the article earlier I didn’t realize that Wells had written about the Daffy Duck short. The title of it is “Duck Amuck.” I am glad he metioned it because I had forgotten its name. Apparently, it’s a pretty profound piece.
As soon as wells began writing about experimental animation, I felt a little cheated honestly. How can some write about experimental animation? The field is so broad! I do agree with his terms that describe experimental animation. They do feel very abstract and hard to predict. I also agree that experimental animation very rarely creates a story. Most of the time it hints that it is leaning towards telling a story and then completely dismisses it.
I wouldn’t mind more exposure to experimental animation. I have only seen a few pieces at this juncture in my life, so it’s hard for me to visualize some of the techniques that Wells writes about here. I found it inspiring that Wells put in a quote from Leopold Survage about animating his paintings. When I did my experimental self portrait for Shannon, I attempted to animated some of my paintings. I think that I would enjoy this new expression. Its nice to read an outline about an artform such as animation. I know so little about it – but now I am more learned.