In the Anchorage International Film Festival program we learn that animation programmer Teresa Scott considers animation an art. If she should get challenged on this (and the fact that they feel obliged to advertise this opinion suggests that she might) she should know that she is in good company. She has an ally over at U.A.A's Litsite where founder Ron Spatz isn't afraid to feature animation as literature. And why not? It's certainly narrative, and what separates this form from any other form of narrative art? The same tests should apply.
Among the questions to ask: Is it well-executed? Does it deepen our appreciation of our place in the world? Does it challenge us to see anew? Is it beautiful in and of itself? The more the piece fulfills any of these criteria, (or others, make up your own) the more "artful" it is. It's not a question of form. Be it animation, novel, film, poetry, painting, the question is what does it do, and how well does it do it.
Let's hear it for those like Teresa and Ron who see deeper than form. Their reward: To find art where others have missed it.
Ah Pete, who knew you were such a softie? Thank you for the kind remarks.
ReplyDeleteFor me, one of the most important aspects of any type of art--after I've seen it, read it or participated in it--is what emotion does it render? Joy or sadness, anger or comfort,it doesn't matter what feeling is aroused, as long as some type of emotion is elicited.