Advertisement

Craft as Critique in Experimental Animation

  • Lilly Husbands
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Animation book series (PAANI)

Abstract

As a moving image art form, experimental animation blurs the boundaries between art and craft, intangibility and materiality, conceptualism and sensuousness in wide-ranging and thought-provoking ways. This chapter considers experimental animation alongside the concerns of craft as a physical, artistic and critical practice. It focuses in particular on issues of (im)materiality, the act of making and the significance of skill—the last of these especially as it relates to what craft theorists call “sloppy craft” (Wilson 2015, xxiv), or the purposeful application of imperfect technique as a subversive practice and form of social critique. Drawing from art history and craft theory, the chapter reveals some of the complex ways that craft undergirds and shapes our understanding of experimental animation as an art form.

References

  1. Adamson, Glenn. 2007. Thinking Through Craft. London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamson, Glenn. 2010. “Introduction.” In The Craft Reader, edited by Glenn Adamson, 1–5. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  3. Balsom, Erika. 2017. “Against the Novelty of New Media: The Resuscitation of the Authentic.” In You Are Here: Art After the Internet, edited by Omar Kholeif, 66–77. Manchester and London: HOME and SPACE.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, Gregory. 2019. “Gregory Bennett.” In Experimental Animation: From Analogue to Digital, edited by Miriam Harris, Lilly Husbands, and Paul Taberham, 267–270. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Betancourt, Michael. 2013. The History of Motion Graphics: From Avant-Garde to Industry in the United States. Rockville, MD: Wildside Press. Google Scholar
  6. Bolter, Jay David, and Richard Grusin. 1999. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Buchan, Suzanne. 2007. “Oscillating at the ‘High/Low’ Art Divide: Curating and Exhibiting Animation.” In Issues in Curating Contemporary Art and Performance, edited by Judith Rugg and Michèle Sedgwick, 131–146. Bristol: Intellect Books.Google Scholar
  8. Deren, Maya. 2015. “Amateur Versus Professional.” In Alternative Projections: Experimental Film in Los Angeles, 1945–1980, edited by David E. James and Adam Hyman, 39–40. New Barnet: John Libbey.Google Scholar
  9. Failes, Ian. 2017. “The Beautiful Side of ‘Ugly’: How a Film Embraced Errors and Happy Accidents in CG.” Cartoon Brew. May 12. Accessed May 25, 2018. https://www.cartoonbrew.com/shorts/beautiful-side-ugly-film-embraced-errors-happy-accidents-cg-149823.html.
  10. Fariello, M. Anna. 2011. “Making and Naming: The Lexicon of Studio Craft.” In Extra/Ordinary: Craft and Contemporary Art, edited by Maria Elena Buszek, 23–42. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Furniss, Maureen. 2007. Art in Motion: Animation Aesthetics. Revised edition. New Barnet: John Libbey.Google Scholar
  12. Gere, Charlie. 2008. Digital Culture. Second edition. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
  13. Griffin, George. 2007. “Concrete Animation.” Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2 (3): 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffin, George. 2009. “Cartoon, Anti-Cartoon.” In Animation: Art & Industry, edited by Maureen Furniss, 189–198. New Barnet: John Libbey.Google Scholar
  15. Gronlund, Melissa. 2017. Contemporary Art and Digital Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Gunning, Tom. 1989–1990. “Towards a Minor Cinema: Fonoroff, Herwitz, Awesh, Lapore, Klahr and Solomon.” Motion Picture 3 (1–2): 2–5.Google Scholar
  17. Harris, Miriam. 2019. “Digital Experimentation: Extending Animation’s Expressive Vocabulary.” In Experimental Animation: From Analogue to Digital, edited by Miriam Harris, Lilly Husbands, and Paul Taberham, 114–131. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hosea, Birgitta. 2010. “Drawing Animation.” Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal 5 (3): 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Husbands, Lilly. 2014. “Animated Experientia: Aesthetics of Contemporary Experimental Animation.” Ph.D. dissertation, King’s College London.Google Scholar
  20. Husbands, Lilly. 2019. “The ‘Quasi-Artistic Venture’: MTV Idents and Alternative Animation Culture.” In Animation and Advertising, edited by Malcolm Cook and Kirstin Thompson, forthcoming. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Jönsson, Love. 2007. “Rethinking Dichotomies: Crafts and the Digital.” In NeoCraft: Modernity and the Crafts, edited by Sandra Alfoldy, 240–248. Halifax: The Press of the Nova Scotia School of Art and Design.Google Scholar
  22. Krugh, Michele. 2014. “Joy in Labour: The Politicization of Craft from the Arts and Crafts Movement to Etsy.” Canadian Review of American Studies 44 (2): 281–301.Google Scholar
  23. Longchamps, Denis. 2015. “An Impression of déjà vu: Craft, the Visual Arts, and the Need to Get Sloppy.” In Sloppy Craft: Postdisciplinarity and the Crafts, edited by Elaine Cheasley Paterson and Susan Surette, 61–78. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  24. Mack, Jodie. 2019. “Jodie Mack.” In Experimental Animation: From Analogue to Digital, edited by Miriam Harris, Lilly Husbands, and Paul Taberham, 153–157. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Manovich, Lev. 2013. Software Takes Command. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  26. Mazanti, Louise. 2011. “Super-Objects: Craft as an Aesthetic Position.” In Extra/Ordinary: Craft and Contemporary Art, edited by Maria Elena Buszek, 59–82. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCullough, Malcolm. 1998. Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital Hand. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mittell, Jason. 2003. “The Great Saturday Morning Exile: Scheduling Cartoons on Television’s Periphery in the 1960s.” In Prime Time Animation: Television Animation and American Culture, edited by Carol A. Stabile and Mark Harrison, 33–54. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Moritz, William. 1997. “Digital Harmony: The Life of John Whitney, Computer Animation Pioneer.” Animation World Magazine, Issue 2.5 (August). Accessed May 25, 2018. https://www.awn.com/mag/issue2.5/2.5pages/2.5moritzwhitney.html.
  30. Moritz, William. 2004. Optical Poetry: The Life and Work of Oskar Fischinger. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  31. O’Reilly, David. 2009. “Basic Animation Aesthetics.” Davidoreilly.com. Accessed June 1, 2018. http://www.davidoreilly.com/downloads/.
  32. Paterson, Elaine Cheasley, and Susan Surette. 2015. “Introduction.” In Sloppy Craft: Postdisciplinarity and the Crafts, edited by Elaine Cheasley Paterson and Susan Surette, 1–25. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  33. Peterson, James. 1994. Dreams of Chaos, Visions of Order: Understanding the American Avant-Garde. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Power, Pat. 2009. “Animated Expressions: Expressive Style in 3D Computer Graphic Narrative Animation.” Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal 4 (2): 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ramey, Kathryn. 2016. Experimental Filmmaking: Break the Machine. London: Focal Press.Google Scholar
  36. Roberts, Lacey Jane. 2011. “Put Your Thing Down, Flip It, and Reverse It: Reimagining Craft Identities Using Tactics of Queer Theory.” In Extra/Ordinary: Craft and Contemporary Art, edited by Maria Elena Buszek, 243–259. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roberts, John. 2007. The Intangibilities of Form: Skill and Deskilling in Art After the Readymade. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2010. “Art After Deskilling.” Historical Materialism 18: 77–96.Google Scholar
  39. Russett, Robert, and Cecile Starr. 1988. Experimental Animation: Origins of a New Art. New York: Da Capo.Google Scholar
  40. Russett, Robert. 2009. Hyperanimation: Digital Images and Virtual Worlds. Herts: John Libbey.Google Scholar
  41. Sarrat, Sara Álvarez, and María Lorenzo Hernández. 2013. “How Computers Re-Animated Hand-Made Processes and Aesthetics for Artistic Animation.” Animation Studies Online Journal 7. January 23. Accessed May 25, 2018. https://journal.animationstudies.org/sara-alvarez-sarrat-and-maria-lorenzo-hernandez-how-computers-re-animated-hand-made-processes-and-aesthetics-for-artistic-animation-2/.
  42. Shapiro, Miriam, and Melissa Meyer. 1977–1978. “Waste Not/Want Not: An Enquiry into What Women Saved and Assembled—Femmage.” Heresies I (4): 66–69.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, Vicky. 2015. “The Animator’s Body in Expanded Cinema.” Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal 10 (3): 222–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Snoad, Laura. 2018. “Nikita Diakur’s Chaotic Animations Are a Gross Study in Dynamic Computer Simulation.” It’s Nice That. May 1. Accessed 1 June 2018. https://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/nikita-diakurs-ugly-animation-010518.
  45. Sobchack, Vivian. 2009. “Animation and Automation, or, the Incredible Effortfulness of Being.” Screen 50 (4): 375–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spigel, Lynn. 2008. TV By Design: Modern Art and the Rise of Network Television. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Stark, Mary. 2013. “From Fibre to Frock, 16 mm Film Loop Using Cotton Spools.” Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/57236528.
  48. Stark, Mary. 2014. “Points of Translation and Transformation.” Blog. Artist Residency at La Escocesa, Barcelona. https://marystarkbarcelona.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/points-of-translation-and-transformation/.
  49. Stevens, Dennis. 2011. “Validity Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Mapping Craft Communities of Practice.” In Extra/Ordinary: Craft and Contemporary Art, edited by Maria Elena Buszek, 43–58. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taberham, Paul. 2019. “It Is Alive If You Are: Defining Experimental Animation.” In Experimental Animation: From Analogue to Digital, edited by Miriam Harris, Lilly Husbands, and Paul Taberham, 17–36. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Takahashi, Tess. 2005. “‘Meticulously, Recklessly, Worked Upon’: Direct Animation, the Auratic and the Index.” In The Sharpest Point: Animation at the End of Cinema, edited by Chris Gehman and Steve Reinke, 166–178. Toronto: XYZ Books.Google Scholar
  52. Trilling, James. 2001. The Language of Ornament. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
  53. Turvey, Malcolm, Ken Jacobs, Annette Michelson, Paul Arthur, Brian Frye, and Chrissie Iles. 2002. “Round Table: Obsolescence and American Avant-Garde Film.” October 100: 115–32.Google Scholar
  54. Wagner, Keith, and In-gyoo Jang. 2016. “The 3-D Animated Codescape: Imperfection and Digital Labor Zones in Wall-E (2008) and Wreck-It Ralph (2012).” Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal 11 (2): 130–145.Google Scholar
  55. Wells, Paul. 1998. Understanding Animation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Wells, Paul. 2002. Animation: Genre and Authorship. London: Wallflower Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wilson, Anne. 2015. “Foreword: Sloppy Craft—Origins of a Term.” In Sloppy Craft: Postdisciplinarity and the Crafts, edited by Elaine Cheasley Paterson and Susan Surette, xxiv–xxvii. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  58. Wood, Aylish. 2014. “Behind the Scenes: A Study of Autodesk Maya.” Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal 9 (3): 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lilly Husbands
    • 1
  1. 1.Middlesex UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations