Bones of Contention: Thoughts on the Study of Animation

The writer of this article, Andrew Darley, does not claim to be an animation specialist but rather an individual with film, new media and visual cultural studies interests. In his paper he discusses the prejudices against and claims about the medium of animation. He also suggests solutions for this from a neutral perspective instead of arguing how superior animation is to other mediums.

First he discusses how animation has been undervalued as an art form and compares it to other media such as ‘live action film’. Also that there has been too much claimed about the medium. Instead of finding the most superior form of animation their distinguishing characteristics should be researched. This is so one can ‘diversify’ the field. Animation scholarship has also engaged in the larger questions instead of the immediate required questions such as the animation’s ‘historical, stylistic, aesthetic and cultural’ questions.

Animation has as much depth and history as live action film and therefore should have greater scholarly attention because it is an equally important subject. The ‘distinguishing characteristics and the important areas of commonality’ between live action film and animation should also be determined.

He explains how animation scholars have claimed that animation is superior to other mediums by being more ‘imaginative’ and allowing more ‘control necessary for genuine art making’. Yet other mediums can allow as much control from using certain techniques. The quality of a work should be established from a ‘stylistic, generic and conventional comparison’ coupled with ‘analysis of semantic elements’. This should not be determined from which medium is being used.

The new digital medium has broken down the boundary between animation and live action. Despite a claim that one will not be able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy, Darley writes that live action and animation already both include realistic and fantastical subject matter. Animations can already be realist by depicting iconic or symbolic images.

Darley finds that previous writings on animation have been far too theoretical and ‘futile’. They should involve the real aspects of animation such as it’s ‘practices, forms, techniques, production and reception contexts, let alone films with their possible significance and meanings’. These writings are too interdisciplinary rather than focussing on the important aspects of the animation. They leave one with no knowledge of the real practices for the medium.

According to Darley, how to rate an animation should be from the ideas and processes or practices, which are supplementary to the technique of producing the impression of movement in space and time. These aspects should also be compared to characters, scenarios, stories, styles and meaningful images.
In his conclusion he explains how he perceives animation by not being more superior but rather just another medium that is no more special than any other. Therefore it should be as understood and researched because of its ‘rich history of incongruous practices, forms and styles, of institutional, cultural and national diversity’. Animation should be focussed on as the ‘true object of study’ for its distinct aspects and these in relation to other animation and media.