They are all here on every post!
http://oliviacgreen.wordpress.com/
Time For Hugs Banner
Monday, May 7, 2012
Comments 1-12
Every one of mikes posts now bears my thoughts. TAKE THAT MIKE. I have no idea who you are.
http://mikeweber90.wordpress.com/
http://mikeweber90.wordpress.com/
Blog post 12: the end of the blogs
Oh the last blog, and I still have so much more to do. Cursed is the life of a procrastinator.
Today I'll talk about how the class impacted me and my works.
For those of you who don't know (looks around web page) I have my own comic. It's not animation, but it is sequential images that tell a story, so some of the lessons are pretty applicable.
In truth very few of the lessons were new to me as far as how animation relates to it's stiller brother comics. Scott McCloud lists off a fair amount of what makes a cartoon in "Understanding comics". This means I will skip over quite a few of the overlapping lessons and the lessons about cartoons, which leaves just the lessons of how sequential art evolved as my topic for this post.
In truth I suppose that cuts down a lot of what I was going to talk about. What commonalities do sequential art forms have in common. Not cartoons. Just sequential art.
Well I could easily start with their differences. Comics rely on choice of moment, while animation show step by step movement and have far less choice of moment. You do see transitions however, so they do overlap slightly. Animation can have many more moments. You have all of the stages of a punch, you don't need to worry about whether or not you show a middle to the punch, it's already there. But transitions do exist for many of the same practical reasons. Meanwhiles, laters, and other announcer type sayings pop up in both of the forms.
Sound. Comics have none, animation has the ability to have it. Instead of writing pow, slick, bang you can actually hear it. Animation doesn't require you to voice the characters, it gives you a voice for them. Animation has a whole other sense for viewers to enjoy.
Story. Ah there it is. A story. Everything requires a story in sequential art. That's why it's sequential, to tell something that one picture could not.
So if anything were to truly be learned by comparing the two. It is the need for a story to accompany the art.
Today I'll talk about how the class impacted me and my works.
For those of you who don't know (looks around web page) I have my own comic. It's not animation, but it is sequential images that tell a story, so some of the lessons are pretty applicable.
In truth very few of the lessons were new to me as far as how animation relates to it's stiller brother comics. Scott McCloud lists off a fair amount of what makes a cartoon in "Understanding comics". This means I will skip over quite a few of the overlapping lessons and the lessons about cartoons, which leaves just the lessons of how sequential art evolved as my topic for this post.
In truth I suppose that cuts down a lot of what I was going to talk about. What commonalities do sequential art forms have in common. Not cartoons. Just sequential art.
Well I could easily start with their differences. Comics rely on choice of moment, while animation show step by step movement and have far less choice of moment. You do see transitions however, so they do overlap slightly. Animation can have many more moments. You have all of the stages of a punch, you don't need to worry about whether or not you show a middle to the punch, it's already there. But transitions do exist for many of the same practical reasons. Meanwhiles, laters, and other announcer type sayings pop up in both of the forms.
Sound. Comics have none, animation has the ability to have it. Instead of writing pow, slick, bang you can actually hear it. Animation doesn't require you to voice the characters, it gives you a voice for them. Animation has a whole other sense for viewers to enjoy.
Story. Ah there it is. A story. Everything requires a story in sequential art. That's why it's sequential, to tell something that one picture could not.
So if anything were to truly be learned by comparing the two. It is the need for a story to accompany the art.
Blog posts 11 Animation as art?
Blog post 11: I can has be qualified as art?
Cartoonists always seem to get a bad rap as Vaudvillans (The words of Rube Goldberg, not mine). That is, people who preceed the main act, and art meant simply for entertainment purposes. Of course we live in a different time now than the 60's, where entertainment has become a form of art, but animation still falls into the category of sub-art.
Or do we? In truth I don't know. Everyone in my circles seems to agree that animation is art, but when does the change happen? When does Cartooning go from "vaudvillian" to "artist". As a community we typically relegate realistic looking things to art. The more real it looks, the more art it is. I don't know if this is really where we, as cartoonists, want to be.
Yes, we are being considered art now. Fine. Good. Yay even.
But do we even want to? If we have to be like "professional artists" to be artists aren't we giving up the best part of cartoons? The fact they are a medium both separate and included in art?
I don't mean to disrespect those that have been established as artists within the community, and those that truly are worthy of both art in the since of classic art and in cartoon art. But I think you are all our strongest advocates. They all know how art is both similar and different than animation, and only they can perhaps prove that we can be art, and that even those that don't fall under the classic ideal of art can be a new form of art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)