Understanding Animation, Paul Wells

Chapter 1: Thinking About Animated Films

To 'animate' means to 'give life to.' This is the first factoid we are presented with in Wells' introduction to the world of animation. An animated film is one that attempts to visually give the illusion of movement. The definitions given by various animators from different schools of thought are offered to give the reader the most whole and encompassing description of the art form.
As with other readings from this week, the author delves into the depths of the history of animation, listing the evolution of animation techniques and giving well-known examples along the way. I will not go in to detail about it here, as I already have about the previous reading and in class discussions.

A case study in this chapter that grabbed my attention was that of 'Disney and the Realist Principle.' In the early half of the 20th century, while European animation artists were looking to the art form as a means of expression, Disney Productions was established in the United States to develop it as an industry. Walt Disney, the founder, wanted to fight for commercial stability and so sought to grow the animation production technologies to achieve this. He prioritised the idea of mechanism, both in form and content of his productions. Disney introduced synchronised sound, multi-plane images, feature lengths and Technicolor to cartoons.
     Disney developed believable motion in his characters, and gave them plausible motivation for their actions. He had a great realist ideal he wished all his films would achieve. Some may see his profit-driven desire innovate as undermining the essence and purpose of animation itself. They fear that  'Disney' has become synonymous with 'animation,' leading some consumers to receive and understand it in a limited way.
      Personally, I have no issue against Walt Disney Productions or the way in which they chose to develop their company. I prefer realistic portrayals of any subject in art as opposed to abstract or surreal ones: I have always felt more in admiration of the skill of the old masters of painting who tried to create photo realistic artworks, than those of the impressionists and post-impressionists who embrace featuring the media in which they worked as as important as the subject matter itself. The author makes a case for the 'problem' of realism, which I think is slightly a redundant argument as I believe he is concentrating too heavily on the terminology of the word 'realism.' He argues that animation can never be truly be realistic, as anything created is a construct of the author and will always contain some type of authorship or subjectivity. He dismisses too quickly the fact that we are coded to read a particular familiar 'reality' in a certain way. Even though this might not be 'reality' in the truest sense of the word, it is still conventionally what society knows and wants to perceive as such. I would make a case that this acceptance of one conventional form of reality transcends the attacks from his argument of rhetoric.