[-empyre-] 'Fuzzy' terms and high/low art economies
I'm very glad to be 'here' with you and all involved in this empyre thread. (I hope this post doesn't turn into overlong lines that you need to scroll to read - if so I'll try to rectify this in the next one) I'd like to briefly pick up on what Paul wrote about 'fuzzy' terms - the reason for posting this is to encourage people to consider the complexity of techniques and forms that fall under that umbrella, and to give some regard for the hundreds of genres that the form can express. It is most pointedly *not* a genre. For example, The Library of Congress Moving Image Genre-Form Guide allocates animation as one of three Sublists (the others are Experimental and Advertising) that is classified in Subdivisions according to techniques and technologies. This is unusual in that other genres are described with historical, ideological, aesthetic or content-based terminologies: http://www.loc.gov/rr/mopic/migsub.html#Animation It is much like the troublesome term 'experimental film'. . In September last year, a ListSERVE debate ensued around a call for proposal for the FSAC Film Genre Series, two of which were anime (which is a genre) and experimental film. A discussion ensued, and Jeffrey Skoller for UC Berkeley offered up some valuable arguments for the case against genrification of experimental film. Analogous to the Cinema Media Studies Special Interest group Ex-FM (that founder Michael Zryd asked me to be a founding member of precisely because of animation's 'fuzziness') members concerns about experimental film the very fuzzy term of 'animation' needs unpacking and redefining into a number of related areas of critical engagement and authorship An example for this is Stan Vanderbeek's collage and cutout film work (the next issue of animation: an interdiciplinary journal - ANM for short - will be a special issue on him). Vanderbeek's animation films are 'experimental' but they can also be allocated to genres of dark comedy, activist, diary, lyrical, reflexive, public affairs, war (using the LoC's gernres). Many animation films express social critique, political satire, commodity culture, gender, issues of representation, for instance Martha Coburn, Paul Vester, George Griffin,Vera Neubauer and many more. So 'fuzzy' terms can be a good thing, they can also be a disservice to the multliplicity of styles, content and form, not to mention the multiple platforms animation is increasingly using. Part of my concern with the term is to do with the artefact - another theme you were interesting in pursuing here - and the (improving) high/low art divide between 'serious' and 'art' animation. William Kentridge and Robin Rhode are to my knowledge, two of the few 'animation' artists to actually break through this divide. Why aren't the Quay brother's works in Tate Modern? Why do they screen Fischli Weiss, but not Jerzy Kucia's or the Quays' works in the same contexts? An example is their currently touring DORMITORIUM exhibition, that was recently at Cornell. There is a long way to go to correct a common perception that animation is not art. On the BBCs website, one reviewer of the 2007 exhibition Momentary Momentum: Animated Drawings at Parasol Unit Foundation for Contemporary Art, London (which includes Kentridge and Rhode), states, It would be wrong to refer to these works as just animations. ( Francesca Gavin, Moving Drawings at Londons Parasol Unit, Collective: The Interactive Culture Magazine, March 8, 2007, http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A20531611.) This comment is symptomatic of the common misconceptions of 'animation', as the Parasol Units selection of artists merges just animation with art, perhaps, in reversal, challenging in its own way the high/low divide. The concern is that the terms elides some (of course not all of it is art) animation from art economies and I agree with what you write, that Like documentary, another term that is utterly straightforward to some people, utterly contentious to others (with the truth being that, really, most people find it somewhere in between; which is to say, a useful term to describe what they do/watch/make/critique on a day-to-day basis). My critique of the term is not that it is pejorative - rather that in (many) people's mind it doesn't differentiate between Looney Tunes and Vanderbeek's 'Dance of the Looney Spoons): http://www.ubu.com/film/vanderbeek_dance.html (Ubuweb has over a dozen of his films online) So I think it is very much in the ballpark of writers and filmmakers to contribute to expanding and defining the term, and this is increasingly the case as more animation and moving image studies scholars apply their specialist knowledge and expertise to animation in all its variety. This is what I mean by tired canons. So I'll end this post here and look forward to what comes next. Suzanne ___ empyre forum
Re: [-empyre-] high/low art economies
Dear Suzanne, Many thanks for bringing up the issue of animation within the context of the museum. A few months ago the Whitney Museum in NYC hosted the animated project Play/Pause, an array of double screened animated paintings set to a musical score by Sadie Benning. In December, the Museum of Modern Art in NY featured the blockbuster multi-media work of Tim Burton. In the catalog's introduction, Burton admits that the museum was the very last place he expected his work to reside. Tim Murray and I visited the exhibition twice. It was so crowded on both occasions not only were we unable to see the work but we left the museum early because of the hoards of tourists that gravitated to what I perceive is a show that was launched to lure the viewer who ordinarily opted out of buying an entrance ticket. Those of us in close proximity of NY are looking forward to the opening of William Kentridge's show at the MOMA but also his collaboration at the Met for his artistic intervention into the opera The Nose. So I agree that the work fuzzy is most appropriate for the broad interdisciplinary/multi/mixed media that animation encompasses. The low/high divide is dissipating in the US because of economics. Bringing popular culture into institutions that usually feature high art is a strategic way to broaden the demographics of the viewers. Perhaps the Tate and the MOMA will include the Quay Brothers phenomenal work sooner than later. Renate I'm very glad to be 'here' with you and all involved in this empyre thread. (I hope this post doesn't turn into overlong lines that you need to scroll to read - if so I'll try to rectify this in the next one) I'd like to briefly pick up on what Paul wrote about 'fuzzy' terms - the reason for posting this is to encourage people to consider the complexity of techniques and forms that fall under that umbrella, and to give some regard for the hundreds of genres that the form can express. It is most pointedly *not* a genre. For example, The Library of Congress Moving Image Genre-Form Guide allocates animation as one of three Sublists (the others are Experimental and Advertising) that is classified in Subdivisions according to techniques and technologies. This is unusual in that other genres are described with historical, ideological, aesthetic or content-based terminologies: http://www.loc.gov/rr/mopic/migsub.html#Animation It is much like the troublesome term 'experimental film'. . In September last year, a ListSERVE debate ensued around a call for proposal for the FSAC Film Genre Series, two of which were anime (which is a genre) and experimental film. A discussion ensued, and Jeffrey Skoller for UC Berkeley offered up some valuable arguments for the case against genrification of experimental film. Analogous to the Cinema Media Studies Special Interest group Ex-FM (that founder Michael Zryd asked me to be a founding member of precisely because of animation's 'fuzziness') members concerns about experimental film the very fuzzy term of 'animation' needs unpacking and redefining into a number of related areas of critical engagement and authorship An example for this is Stan Vanderbeek's collage and cutout film work (the next issue of animation: an interdiciplinary journal - ANM for short - will be a special issue on him). Vanderbeek's animation films are 'experimental' but they can also be allocated to genres of dark comedy, activist, diary, lyrical, reflexive, public affairs, war (using the LoC's gernres). Many animation films express social critique, political satire, commodity culture, gender, issues of representation, for instance Martha Coburn, Paul Vester, George Griffin,Vera Neubauer and many more. So 'fuzzy' terms can be a good thing, they can also be a disservice to the multliplicity of styles, content and form, not to mention the multiple platforms animation is increasingly using. Part of my concern with the term is to do with the artefact - another theme you were interesting in pursuing here - and the (improving) high/low art divide between 'serious' and 'art' animation. William Kentridge and Robin Rhode are to my knowledge, two of the few 'animation' artists to actually break through this divide. Why aren't the Quay brother's works in Tate Modern? Why do they screen Fischli Weiss, but not Jerzy Kucia's or the Quays' works in the same contexts? An example is their currently touring DORMITORIUM exhibition, that was recently at Cornell. There is a long way to go to correct a common perception that animation is not art. On the BBCs website, one reviewer of the 2007 exhibition Momentary Momentum: Animated Drawings at Parasol Unit Foundation for Contemporary Art, London (which includes Kentridge and Rhode), states, It would be wrong to refer to these works as just animations. ( Francesca Gavin, Moving Drawings at Londons Parasol Unit, Collective: The Interactive Culture Magazine, March 8, 2007,
Re: [-empyre-] CG and all things fuzzy
Dear Paul and Suzanne, Can you both talk about how CG fits into your animation programs? At Cornell, Computer Graphics and 3D animation is taught by Computing faculty. It is in the art department where students, particularly recently, have been creating stop action, frame by frame, roto-scoping, drawing based and a medley of other fuzzies. Whether working from photography based or original drawing. their novel, quirky rendering styles, interdisciplinary interests and criticality make their work fresh and innovative. How does it work in the UK? Renate Renate Ferro Visiting Assistant Professor Department of Art Cornell University, Tjaden Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 Email: r...@cornell.edu Website: http://www.renateferro.net Co-moderator of _empyre soft skinned space http://www.subtle.net/empyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empyre Art Editor, diacritics http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/dia/ ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] high/low art economies
Hi Renate, I am joining next week, but the website still has some kind of permission block, can you send me the exact wed site with password if needed, I also don't mind just doing reply all, and having you post it. I will be jumping in sunday night or monday. Chris. Quoting Renate Ferro r...@cornell.edu: Dear Suzanne, Many thanks for bringing up the issue of animation within the context of the museum. A few months ago the Whitney Museum in NYC hosted the animated project Play/Pause, an array of double screened animated paintings set to a musical score by Sadie Benning. In December, the Museum of Modern Art in NY featured the blockbuster multi-media work of Tim Burton. In the catalog's introduction, Burton admits that the museum was the very last place he expected his work to reside. Tim Murray and I visited the exhibition twice. It was so crowded on both occasions not only were we unable to see the work but we left the museum early because of the hoards of tourists that gravitated to what I perceive is a show that was launched to lure the viewer who ordinarily opted out of buying an entrance ticket. Those of us in close proximity of NY are looking forward to the opening of William Kentridge's show at the MOMA but also his collaboration at the Met for his artistic intervention into the opera The Nose. So I agree that the work fuzzy is most appropriate for the broad interdisciplinary/multi/mixed media that animation encompasses. The low/high divide is dissipating in the US because of economics. Bringing popular culture into institutions that usually feature high art is a strategic way to broaden the demographics of the viewers. Perhaps the Tate and the MOMA will include the Quay Brothers phenomenal work sooner than later. Renate I'm very glad to be 'here' with you and all involved in this empyre thread. (I hope this post doesn't turn into overlong lines that you need to scroll to read - if so I'll try to rectify this in the next one) I'd like to briefly pick up on what Paul wrote about 'fuzzy' terms - the reason for posting this is to encourage people to consider the complexity of techniques and forms that fall under that umbrella, and to give some regard for the hundreds of genres that the form can express. It is most pointedly *not* a genre. For example, The Library of Congress Moving Image Genre-Form Guide allocates animation as one of three Sublists (the others are Experimental and Advertising) that is classified in Subdivisions according to techniques and technologies. This is unusual in that other genres are described with historical, ideological, aesthetic or content-based terminologies: http://www.loc.gov/rr/mopic/migsub.html#Animation It is much like the troublesome term 'experimental film'. . In September last year, a ListSERVE debate ensued around a call for proposal for the FSAC Film Genre Series, two of which were anime (which is a genre) and experimental film. A discussion ensued, and Jeffrey Skoller for UC Berkeley offered up some valuable arguments for the case against genrification of experimental film. Analogous to the Cinema Media Studies Special Interest group Ex-FM (that founder Michael Zryd asked me to be a founding member of precisely because of animation's 'fuzziness') members concerns about experimental film the very fuzzy term of 'animation' needs unpacking and redefining into a number of related areas of critical engagement and authorship An example for this is Stan Vanderbeek's collage and cutout film work (the next issue of animation: an interdiciplinary journal - ANM for short - will be a special issue on him). Vanderbeek's animation films are 'experimental' but they can also be allocated to genres of dark comedy, activist, diary, lyrical, reflexive, public affairs, war (using the LoC's gernres). Many animation films express social critique, political satire, commodity culture, gender, issues of representation, for instance Martha Coburn, Paul Vester, George Griffin,Vera Neubauer and many more. So 'fuzzy' terms can be a good thing, they can also be a disservice to the multliplicity of styles, content and form, not to mention the multiple platforms animation is increasingly using. Part of my concern with the term is to do with the artefact - another theme you were interesting in pursuing here - and the (improving) high/low art divide between 'serious' and 'art' animation. William Kentridge and Robin Rhode are to my knowledge, two of the few 'animation' artists to actually break through this divide. Why aren't the Quay brother's works in Tate Modern? Why do they screen Fischli Weiss, but not Jerzy Kucia's or the Quays' works in the same contexts? An example is their currently touring DORMITORIUM exhibition, that was recently at Cornell. There is a long way to go to correct a common perception that animation is not
