The Wells
reading on the “Theory of Animation” was an interesting read comparing both
traditional animation and experimental animation. What I found most interesting
about the article was Wells’ thoughts on the absence/presence of the artist.
Prior to reading the article I had never really given much thought to the idea
that the presence of the artist in traditional animation was gone. I assumed
that of course the artist was involved. However, after reading the article I
definitely agree with Wells. The animation, as Wells explains, touches so many
hands that it loses the connection with its creator. Wells expands on this loss
of connection through his responses to each step of the process of development
for orthodox animation.
Wells goes on to
explain that for experimental animation “sometimes these ‘visions’ are
impenetrable and resist easy interpretation, being merely the absolutely
individual expression of the artist” (Pg. 45). In thinking about what this
quote, and what Wells said about experimental animation, I have a new found
respect for experimental animation. All that, sometimes craziness, which
appears on screen, is the artist directly communicating their vision with me.
This connection between the artist and the viewer is lost through traditional
animation.
I think Wells presents
a insightful argument on orthodox vs. experimental animation, and one that has
made me think differently about animation in general.
