In Wells' "Notes Towards a Theory of Animation" he establishes his criteria for orthodox animation and experimental animation. He considers the mass-produced cel-animation to be "orthodox" because it is the one that is most used and most recognized by audiences. From there, Wells notes the main differences between orthodox and experimental by breaking down the use of styles, story-telling, even the presence of the artists. I think another key difference between these two forms is their intended audience.
Experimental animators do not reach out to the same audience that orthodox animators target. Orthodox animation is distributed to the general public. It is consumed in movie theaters and on television. That is why orthodox utilizes specific continuity and linear story-telling, that is what is most accessible and pleasing to a general audience. When I say "general audience" I mean the majority of the populace that consumes entertainment a.k.a. "most people". When most people are introduced to experimental animation they try to find a linear narrative because that is what they are accustomed to. When they cannot find that narrative they are often disappointed. The amount of skill and labor that went into the process of creating the piece is lost on them. That is why the key audience for experimental animators tends to be other experimental animators or at least other people who can appreciate their artistic talent.
With the exception of his specification of cel-animation, Wells' definition of orthodox animation can be applied to other forms of animation. For example Aardman's claymation productions and Pixar's computer animated features meet Wells' criteria of orthodox animation. I think this shows that while there is a divide between orthodox and experimental animation, orthodox animation still has the ability to evolve into new areas previously discovered by experimental animation.
No comments:
Post a Comment