toasty road: Answer to a Question.

I received a question the other day, to one of my posts (Toasty Road Observations #15) about me only seeing the broad shapes of things and how I really don't like the details. I thought I would answer it. This blog isn't really about animation or me working as an animator but Jim brought up something that hit home with me and my recent struggles with animation.

Jim wrote:
Do you find this in your animation work, as well? Obviously you're required to work to a certain level of detail, especially when you did feature work, but did you enjoy having to fret over those details?

Hey Jim,
I do feel this way about my animation work. After twelve years of sweating the details working in feature animation it became very tiresome for me. With each new production and advancing technology the amount of control and detail can be overwhelming. At some point I had to ask myself is this what animation means to me? I've never been a fan of emulating life down to life's subtle details. Not that I didn't enjoy it, you can get totally lost in the complexity of animation and I think that is one of it's beauties as an artist. I was really obsessed with it, and that type of knowledge I'll always carry with me, but in the end it's not what really appealed to me as an artist working in animation. I like simple, graphic, clearly communicated animation. I'm not so much a movement for movement sake kinda guy. I like the beauty of the composition and subtle plays of negative and positive shape with a tiny bit of movement on that to sell the acting. I still see animation as a characteture of life, and art form that uses all aspects of the visual arts to tell the story. I don't see it as a medium that just emulates reality. Mainly I guess what I'm saying is that I have more fun bouncing a ball around and working with more simple characters than something so complex, for me it takes away from the fun and the core essence of what animation means to me.

--stephen

Some favorites