Animation defined? Addressing topics of Medium Specificity

Hey Gang! Here is an interesting topic that seems to bring up differences in opinions and artistic practices to what defines the art form of animation and what medium can animation be associated within terms of art making. This article is writen by a pretty awesome animator, Tim Garbutt! <----he's awesome!

To describe a definition for the medium specificity of animation is quite a difficult task for someone, like myself, who doesn’t believe animation has a medium specificity. Of all the art forms that have ever been created, animation has proven that it can be done with any kind of medium. The only element that is universal in all the mediums used to create animation is the use of time and motion. Animated films have been created in computer, created by pencil on paper, made in sand, painted on glass, pixilated people and environments, or scratched on film. Animation is only restricted to the capacity of the artist’s mind who is creating it.

No medium can clearly be defined as an animation medium unless you only include popular culture’s representation of animation through Hollywood films. A popular majority I’m sure would agree that the computer is the medium of animation nowadays. All animated features are created using the computer in recent years and it is perhaps the only art form that is utilizing the computer to create art on a commercial level of success that the common members of society can relate to. It used to be that animated films were confined to the medium of film, but with the replacement of film with digital projectors, even that cannot be completely defined as an animation specific medium.

Animation medium specificity is indefinable. Animation can be created on film, in computers, with a string and a round disc with an image on each side, or in the corner pages of your 8^th grade math book. If the persistence of vision can be achieved, animation can be realized into a physical moving piece of artwork. I think that there are artists over time that have put themselves into a genre of animated filmmaking that allows their particular body of work to lend itself to specifying a medium in their work, such as Len Lye and direct film manipulation animations. Artists in the field of animation choose to focus on one or a few different mediums of representation in animation that they enjoy most, and therefore specify their medium to define who they are in the field of animation and what their specialty is in animated filmmaking. But, animation as a general art form encompassing all types, mediums, and presentations does not bare a sense of medium specificity (in my opinion ).

Physiology of visual perception

In this post, I want to show more of the science behind how we interpret the light and color that we see. When it comes to visual perception, the rods and cones, which are the photoreceptors in the retina, are responsible for detecting light. This is done through the use of light sensitive pigments. Each pigment is made up of a protein called opsin, which can be either a rod opsin or a cone opsin.

The rods are mainly used for dim light while the cones are for bright light vision. The cones are further divided into three groups depending on the wavelength that they absorb: short wavelength cones are for blue, middle wavelength cones are for green, and long wavelength cones are for red. Cones play a large role when it comes to light and dark adaptation. A very dark room will not stimulate the cones in your retina, causing a long period of time for your eyes to adjust to the light and eventually being able to make out details. When the eye is exposed to a brightly lit area, the cones' visual threshold increases relative to the light source. As this happens, the cones are less stimulated and the eyes are able to make out details.

All of this information from the retina is sent through the optic nerve to the brain, almost acting like the film in a camera.

Definition of Animation Part II

Going off Malak's post about defining animation...

Does animation really need to be defined? Why is it that people constantly feel this need to put limits on things, so that they can categorize and understand them? Last year we had a whole symposium here at USC, centered around the task of redefining animation.

I can understand the need for a definition as far as artists are concerned. It has been a long struggle to get animation taken seriously as an art form, and this effect things like funding for programs and for artists. But sometimes I think people get to caught up in specifics of what justifies a certain form or not.

One example included a debate in class centered around the difference between something being called a photo, or a film. The questioned posed was that if you film a stagnant room, and you present that beside a photo of the same scene, does it make it a film just because it was shot on film? Many went back and forth, with some saying some sort of movement needs to happen for it to be a film, etc.




A similar debate was also posed for animation. One person felt that a still could be animation in that the action is happening inside their mind when you look at the still- in a sense it has an animate quality. Others argued that one needed to produce movement between frames, and therefore a single picture could not be animation. The way I feel is somewhere in-between and is from an approach of time and intent.





I do believe there to be a difference between the still in counterpoint to film/animation that its deliberately lending time and/or movement to an object. For instance, a painting inherits is dynamism in that it is still. A choice has been made for the object to be still, and a viewer can analyze this still and look at all its aspects and create a multitude of ways to view it or themes to derive from it. It is animate in this sense, but this aesthetic is different from something that is deliberately given time or movement. The experience of viewing this is different because what you see will change- it will change in that it now has the aspect of time added to it. I do think movement is a very important quality in animation, but I think it is time that separates it from still art. Not to say that time cannot be found in other things, such as film, but again, animation is a hybrid of many mediums.

To address the difference between live action and animation in a sense requires a different set of attributes. I will start this argument by posting a rough and partial definition of animation that I came up with for this class discussion:

Animation uses the audio/visual language of cinema in way similar to how a poem uses words. It condenses meaning and communicates abstract ideas, such as emotion and experience. It uses line, shape, color and symbols in motion, in combination with sound or lack of sound, to represent ideas that stimulate an emotional response, packaged in such a way that others can experience them. It is personal and collective, based upon ideas we experience in the world and in our minds.

Although this covers more aspects of areas in animation than I want to discuss at this moment, I will address the part about animation being similar to a poem. In live action, we are able to capture an image of reality that closely relates to what we see in our everyday lives. In animation, we are able to abstract these items and concepts into a form that could not happen in the waking world. Through aesthetic choices, we are able to condense meaning and enhance it. For example, through using certain color schemes and rendering more iconic characters, one can break through the barriers of what we perceive reality to be and in a sense open our minds to digest ideas in a different way. By allowing us to delve into a more abstracted subconscious world, I believe we are able to be more open to process concepts and emotions without the stigma attached to them in a world of reality. In a sense, the fact that film is framed and presented in a manner not integrated in the real world, it does this already. I think animation can take it a step further, by its ability to eliminate some prejudices people ingrain in reality and present an different perspective.

Also, you can argue that many mediums accomplish this task, certainly painting and music do.

So, I guess I can conclude back with the beginning point. Yes, I did just go through this whole spiel to define what animation is, but I do not agreed with the fact that it has to be so specifically defined. Since it shares so many qualities with different fields, I can only see it being compared with the other mediums to be described. Ultimately, it does not exist in a vacuum, and contains a huge power to portray experience and ideas to others.

Definition of Animation

So a very heated debate went on this week when a bunch of animators where asked to define animation!





What is animation?


I feel if this question was asked to the general public their first answer would be to refer to television cartoons and especially Disney features.


But when asked to those that create and inform the genre itself the notions and perceptions of what animation is differs a great deal.





Wikipedia defines is as: Animation is the rapid display of a sequence of images of 2-D or 3-D artwork or model positions in order to create an illusion of movement. It is an optical illusion of motion due to the phenomenon of persistence of vision, and can be created and demonstrated in a number of ways. The most common method of presenting animation is as a motion picture or video program, although several other forms of presenting animation also exist.





Norman McLaren defines it as : Animation is not the art of drawings that move, but the art of movements that are darwn. What happens between each frame is much more important than what exists on each frame. Animation is therefore the art of manipulating the invisible interstices that lie between the frames."

In both these definition it seems that motion, rather the illusion of motion is important. So then would a mere image of an optical illusion be constitued as animation or not?

What about a sculpture that defines motion but is not confined within a frame?

There also seems to be the argument that any appearance of live action or it manipulation is not animation. That special effects aren't animation either. I dont think I agree with any of that.

My definition of animation is that it is the illusion and manipulation of time, space and motion and that can be achieved through several mediums.
To me the beauty of animation is that is almost undefineable, and with the advant of new technology it continues to be reinvented and redefined. It merges onto so many different medium and is becoming more and more infultrated into all kinds of mediums and technologies an example cell phone.
I think for animation to have a multitude of definition and perceptions really makes it powerful and hopefully the general public will one day be more aware of that.

Metaphors for Human Existence

One element which I think is a great asset to animation is it's ability to describe and portray a message of human experience. Concerning our feelings and emotions, they are an abstract concept which is not tangible and cannot be done justice by words alone. I believe we can also get these kinds of messages across through other mediums, such as painting. However, where painting is concerned, the experience is in the exploration of the still, where it's life is created by the viewer, whom renders it dynamic in interpretation.





In animation, it is the combination of stills, with audio many times, which delivers a completely different kind of message and sensation. I think through this combination we can share these experiences with others, as long as they are willing to experience.







"(My) films are not meant to be explained, analyzed, or understood. They are more experiential, like listening to music." (Jordan Belson)

Visual Music

So I know the rest of the blogs have focused on Light lately, but I wanted to bring up the issue of sound also, especially after last seminar's screening of visual music, and the very term its self is intresting.

Visual music is also refered to as color music, but mainly it is defined as a system which translates music or sound into a visual representation using many mediums like CG, Video and animation and so on.

Color music is an old tradition of creating devices such as lumas that display colors and lights similar to the structure of how music is constructed in a way.

This is real interesting becuase I've studied music long before I ever studied animatin and in a sense I have to say it was hard for me to see the association between how light/color functioned in these films we saw and its relation to music.

The first instinct is to want to see the visuals directly describe the music heard and in almost all the films we saw I would say that was not the case, especially in the more fluid and abstract animations such as Richard Bailey's work. I found that either the visuals were so over powering and almost hard to discribe using the music that they chose,it almost seemed like a seperate accompaniment, or the other case of were the music was great and sadly the visuals did not hold up to it.

The way in which i see those pieces described in similar ways to music is their structure. They remind me of sonatas, which are large scale musical pieces that have typically three to four movements. The different movements describe the same theme differently and it seems to be this way in the visual music. The light is the occuring motif and it goes through several transformations, it crescendoes where we see the visuals becomes more intricate and climax in a similar way. It goes through different paces much like the different movements in sonatas, where every piece has its pace.

Some of the pieces remind me of more modern and contemporary music were syncopation became more popular and we see that in the juxtapositions of visuals and even its contrast against the music alot of time.

I can definitly see how these pieces relate a bit more to the structure of music than say the rigid and more formuliac structure of script and story writing. I still think that to some degree they are not as effective as I would like them to be. I think the disjunction between the visuals and the music that goes with it takes alot away.

I think the work of Oskar Fischinger and Norman Mclaren are much more succesful at infusing both mediums together. One of the beautifies of animation is its ability to manipulate time and control every aspect of it and they use that so beautiful and insync with the beats of the music that they choose. Even the simple shapes and elements they use visually portray the notes that are heard.

High and Low

An image perceived as being normal will generally have balance in the light and shade of the image. The representation of a certain scene can be manipulated by choosing to emphasize on one extreme, whether that be light or dark through the use of High Key and Low Key lighting.

High key images are predominantly white and use light tones. In the image above, it helps give it a sense of simplicity by limiting the amount of detail and the color palette, ultimately creating a softer image.

The next image is a good example of Low Key lighting. They are effective by limiting the amount of light in the image, resulting in high contrast and hard lighting. In this case, it is used effectively to give the image a moody atmosphere.

A Memory of Light

Light Transfer

There are three things that can happen to a light wave. It can be reflected, absorbed, or transmitted. This is determined by the object that the wave hits, and that will give it its color. For an object to be black, it means that all the wavelengths of light hitting that object are absorbed; no light is reflected. Solid objects, for the most part, will reflect light, and transparent objects will transmit light through them.

Color from Light
The color of anything depends on the type of light sent to our eyes; light is necessary if we are to have any perception of color at all. An object is "colored," as stated above, because of the light it reflects—all other colors are absorbed into that specific object. So then, an apple appears red because it reflects red light.(Source)

Holography is a technique that allows the light scattered from an object to be recorded and later reconstructed so that it appears as if the object is in the same position relative to the recording medium as it was when recorded. (Source)

Thoughts:
It's amazing the crucial role light plays in our life. It determines the colors we see, when we can see and yet we cannot see it directly. Holograms are particularly fascinating because they represent a moment of time in light, in which the light reflected from an object is recorded and made eternal. What we see is not the light itself, but a memory of the light, in which we can use to experience times that have past or apply them to experiences of the present through interaction.

Same image, different light

Here are two images just to show just how the same image can be interpreted in different ways just by altering the way in which the light is being used.

In the first image, the individual is being lit from straight above, usually a method to make the person give a much more menacing appearance. The lighting implemented in this image exaggerates the depth of the eye sockets and the bone structure of the face.

The second is the same man, but he is now being lit from the bottom. The image gives more of a strange and unfamiliar vibe. The lighting here plays with emphasizing the eyes and the skin texture.

Simply by emphasizing on specific details can the perception of the same image be manipulated to the point where we come out with completely different interpretations of what is there.

Filling in the Gaps...

Here is a really cool optical illusion that Thomas forwarded me. It is amazing the information we fill in for images. Just to keep in mind we don't really see images as they are, it's how we perceive them to be. This picture is just for show, to see the effect, you will have to click on the link.

CASTLE ILLUSION

and how this effect was accomplished:

INSTRUCTIONS

Rotoscoping!

Rotoscoping is a technique that dates back to the Fleischer brothers in which live-action figures are cut out and re-drawn. The movement and even features in some cases of the characters tend to be more realistic.
In the mid-1990s, Bob Sabiston, an animator and computer scientist veteran of the MIT Media Lab, developed a computer-assisted "interpolated rotoscoping" process which the director Richard Linklater later employed in the full-length feature films Waking Life (2001) and A Scanner Darkly (2006). Linklater licensed the same proprietary rotoscoping process for the look of both films. Linklater is the first director to use digital rotoscoping to create an entire feature film.
The films are notable for having pushed the genre of animation from a medium that is commonly associated as a childish non reality representing form into a form that has a stronger basis and representation of reality. It brings a bit of realism which gives the medium a bit more credibility and bridges the gap between live action and animation.
My interest in this, is the questions of why is it that we need some form of reality to achieve credibility? Why Can't animation in its various forms, from traditional illustrations to computer generated form, without the obvious references to reality be seen as a liable and serious medium.
What is it about a moving illustration that has deemed it "childish"?
There are many animation that are serious, but in the mainstream and even in the history of animation it seems that it has been set as a device centered mainly on the portrayal of the silly, innocent and mindless amusement.
Is it something about the way we perceive human motions, speech, and character in reality that prevents us from accepting animation which is comprised of fabricated realms and simulated realities as truth?

Depth Cues

Here I am just posting some examples of the cues that help us to recognize depth in a planar image:
This image has contradicting cues. It has the depth cue from the squares pattern receding to a horizon point, and uses height of the subjects to indicate depth. However, the size of the figures contradicts how we would expect things to appear as they are further back from us.
















In the image below which is in front? The circle or the square shape? The lack of clarity, or blurriness is an indicator to us that an image is further back. This technique is very popular in animation as a Gaussian blur can increase the depth of a flat image.










We perceive depths in objects relations to each other. Generally we perceive things as being 'in front of' or 'in back of', but in reality, this relationship only exists in our minds and not in the picture itself.















Also utilizing the height principle and use of shadows, in which we have real world experiencing in perceiving, how do you label these objects' relationships to each other?

Perception of textures and space- learned behavior.

The following comes from "Visual Intelligence" by Donald Hoffmann, who is writing about our perception of objects and how we learn from experiences to make automatic inferences, which help us to understand the world that we live in. For example, looking at the fabric hanging in my cubicle, I can say that I know what the material will feel like, not only because I have touched them before, but because I can identify with how the texture of the fabric looks and can predict what it will feel like from experience. The following was a case study published in 1728 by William Cheselden about a boy between 13 and 14 who had eye surgery which enabled him to see after being blind his whole life from congenital cataracts. The boy had problems identifying the differences between a cat and a dog until he was able to catch the cat and know it was a cat by feeling it. In the study they also showed him pictures , which only after a couple of months he realized they were supposed to represent solid structures. Before the realization he had considered them only flat planes comprised of colors and was surprised, after realizing their representation, that although they looked 'round and uneven' they felt only flat.

We do this kind of depth inferring all the time. A good example is the Necker cube of which I have included a picture of above. To the touch it is a flat plane, but we perceive the cube as having depth or 3 dimensionality. Also, we perceive it in two different ways, one in which the box is receding in, and one in which the box is popping out upwards. You construct the cubes that you see although they do not really exists. You mind is constantly trying to construct and perceive images in context to the database of information it has access to.

In reality, and by reality I mean the world around us, we are constructing all the depth we see. Depth is a function of our mind putting together the two images received from your eyes, and in turn, people even see at different depth. So if people do see at different depths, which is the right one? Is there a 'true depth'?

Light and Dark

I've decided to make my focus on the use of light and dark and how it can change a person's perception of the images that they are experiencing. The use of color and lighting, regardless of the visual medium, can play a pivotal role in the emotions that are trying to be conveyed towards the audience. I hope to explore how and why people in general seem to have a certain reaction towards a specific use of contrast or even something as simple as the amount of color saturation, just to name a few brief examples.

Stop that motion!

Hey, sounds like people have some pretty interesting topics. I haven't got as specific of a focus, but I am interested in the perception of depth, especially in 2D animation. I also wanted to share this work with you: http://www.javanivey.com/my_paper_mind.html
I love the technique. I'm always fascinated by the use of 2D elements in 3D space.

How "They" Percieve Animation

Hello

Well Timmy that's pretty interesting. I'd like to see what you come up with.
I think my interest lies in the way in which people perceive animation. It seems to be this common notion that animations are cartoons and a medium directed towards children. I'd like to explore the reasons behind this. Could it be the popular production of main stream animations that are geared for children, like Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks. So do people need to be more exposed to other forms of animation?
Or is it that the look, style, or the medium in all that it contains can only lend itself in a certain manner and only be perceived in a certain way? What are the other forms of animation and why are they unpopular?
I think I'd pretty much like to concentrate on the way in which people think about animation and how it is presented and perceived.

Timmy's Topic!

FIRST POST! WAHOO!

Hey all! I just wanted to say that I want to focus my research on the topic of....................Weight! Thats RIGHT! I am going to eat as much as possible the next 14 weeks and talk about how much weight I gain! We'll keep trakc every week I post on my current weight and then film it all and sell it as a documentary piece! No not really

I want to focus on the the perception of effective animation of weight. Creating figures or forms that convey a sense of reality or believability based on the artistic visual representation and interpretation of weight. I think that in animation, most successful performance or even non narrative pieces that convey a sense of "weight" show a significant level of advancement in the study of motion then those that do not. I hope through my posts I can not only help further educate and practice myself on the effective portrayal of weight as an important element of animation, but that I can also educate you all and the masses about why conveying WEIGHT! in animation is of tremendous importance and of interest to me! I will look primarily in forms of character performance but will also explore wieght applications in other forms of non narrative animations as well!

Tim is currently: 158 lbs :) hehe