On my wanderings around the net, I came across this piece about Disney laying off some 650 animators who work in traditional methods in favor of retaining those who work in the digital media. Given the success of Pixar's work, I'm not surprised. I remember reading in some book a while back, could it be Walt Disney's bio by Bob Thomas or Shamus Culhane's account of working for the studio in the late thirties?..one or the other, I can't readily put my finger on it, but a quote really struck me as unforgettable. In a meeting with his animators and in a fit of temper, Walt was quoted as saying, "if I had machines to replace all of you, I would!" Whether this was accurate or not, I don't know unless I can recall the source, but it is interesting to see that very thing happening now. Walt was an innovator without question and would accept digital art as the next medium to explore, but I know he was shrewd enough to keep the traditional method of handdrawn animation for any projects that required it. Much like the Disney studio archives in California that houses millions of sketches, drawings, paintings, and sculpture for film and parks alike, nothing is thrown away as it may provide the answer to a perplexing question that may be faced in the future.

 

The article goes on to mention that many of the traditionalists, (probably considered "old-timers" with no inspiration and lacking vision) have formed new studios in an attempt to save handdrawn animation from extinction. One of the most important ingredients for success of this move (in my opinion) is to really hone in on story to carry the animation. One of the mistakes the Disney Co. is making is relying on the unique and cutting edge quality of digital art to sell the final product. In fact, "keeping up with the times". What is saving them from such a folly is the fact that Pixar already knows how to deliver entertaining stories and knows how to benefit from that with their new animation. This is the ongoing differences between corporate and artist. One thinks in figures and the other thinks in emotion. What gives corporate a product to manage (or more to the point, a job) is the artist who delivers a good story that entertains the paying customer who must decide whether the next escape is really worth paying for! If the traditionalists intend to stay viable, they need to pull on some heartstrings in the theater and they will raise eyebrows, because a good story survives regardless of the medium. Walt himself believed in this approach, hence his success and dominance in feature animation for so many years until his passing.  

 

Now there is that situation where one medium does work for a story better than another. Always is there that argument that the book was better than the movie. Disney discovered that was the case with a cool reception of it's feature animation of Alice in Wonderland. Perhaps no medium could save that piece other than Lewis Carroll's own words, but these are rare instances where genius can't likely be tampered with by any meduim.

 

Personally, I'm for both traditional and digital forms of animation. It isn't right to toss out the symphony, because we can produce synthetic music, or quit painting on canvas, because we have the latest edition of Paintshop Pro! Handdrawn animation, despite the arguments on what looks better or one technique is superior to another (and there is plenty of that) should not be tossed out entirely for the sake of a new toy that we will quickly grow tired of. More choices of mediums does enrich art as a whole and hopefully these new studios can succeed in keeping some traditions alive.

 

I have read this opinion repeatedly from various sources that art is a skill that anyone can learn and that talent is not necessary. To start off, I'm not bothered by the news that "anyone" can do what I do. I use to think I was special, because everyone in grade school would beg me to draw them something cool on their bookcovers and I could wip up anything on demand pretty easily. Now that I'm an adult setting some obtainable goals for what I have been told is my talent, I realize I'm one of millions out there doing just that. However, is it really that simple for someone who isn't?

 

The mind is an amazing thing and I can't pretend to know the extent of what it is capable of doing given a chance to learn something. How far do we go to believe we are incapable of learning something well enough to call it mastery? I can't imagine learning to play music or write a book well enough to say I can do it efficiently and effectively to be creative with it. I have tried to learn to read music only because I had to back in middle school when music was mandatory. Luckily I had a very understanding teacher! Not that I dislike music, I love it! I have a wellrounded like for rock, blues, some country, bluegrass, and even classical, (Debussy being one of my current favorites) but I couldn't carry a tune in a bucket even if I wanted to. Now, my wife on the otherhand, can! Better yet, she can hum an original catchy tune and put it to lyrics right off the top of her head in a matter of a few minutes. Despite my love for music, I remain in awe of her cleverness. Such an ability will not likely happen in my cerebellum anytime soon.

 

Another thing my wife can do is write. She has taken some interest in writing and has come up with some amazing plot ideas I would love to see complete someday. "Why can't you write? You read a lot!" she would ask. It's true, I enjoy rich epics like Clavell and George R. R. Martin, but I gave up the idea of penning graphic novels and comic strips years ago on the fact that I have no knack for plot development no matter how much I researched.

 

I think learning and just simply knowing has a lot to do with defining talent. For me, there were a lot of concepts in art I did not have to learn simply because it seemed only natural to use them, call it genetic predisposition if you will. On the otherhand, there were concepts I had not known and had to devote time to study and build on what I already could do. After all this time, I'm still learning and probably will go on doing so for many years to come.

 

I think some teachers of art who make these claims fear that people may consider art unobtainable and too intimidating to even give it a try and I do agree there. Creating for the joy of it and creating imagery that pleases doesn't require endless schooling as some might think. For myself, raising the bar to a new level of a defined skill is still intimidating to me as opposed to accepting my current ability as sufficient for my desire. I push myself only to see how far I can possibly go. I already enjoy art, so the inspiration to create is intact. What's left is entering the realm of fear and uncertainy of challenge. Doing work that I was not able to do before and maintaining that level, if not surpassing it scares me, but not the unpleasant kind of scare, more of a thrill I guess. How much can I or anyone learn, how far can we go, and can it all simply be learned ad-infinitum despite a disposition and temperment? Will I hit a limit and not be able to go any further? I suppose time can only tell for anyone who decide to pursue the possibilities.