Advertisement

Handmade Aesthetics in Animation for Adults and Children

  • Ewan KirklandEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Animation book series (PAANI)

Abstract

This chapter explores three examples of digital animation which conspicuously emulate handcrafted, cutout, home-made techniques, interrogating the various functions these imperfect aesthetics serve. Charlie and Lola’s montage style aligns the show with traditional culture aimed at and made by children, Comedy Central’s South Park evokes the amateur style of countercultural underground animation, while The Lego Movie’s stop-frame look connects with fan culture and adult toy animation. Variously producing a sense of naivety, unprofessionalism, playfulness and subversion, these aesthetic choices serve to negotiate tensions and contradictions circulating animation’s commercial, industrial and cultural status. In particular, the implication of a mythical child figure in these franchises’ production processes mediates their complex status as screen media, their relationship to modernity and technology and their appeal to audiences of adults and children.

References

  1. Aldred, Jessica. 2014. “(Un)Blocking the Transmedia Character: Digital Abstraction as Franchise Strategy in Traveller’s Tales’ Lego Games.” In Lego Studies: Examining the Building Blocks of a Transmedial Phenomenon, edited by Mark J.P. Wolf, 105–117. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bashara, Dan. 2015. “Cartoon Visions: UPA, Precisionism and American Modernism.” Animation: An Interdisciplinary Journal 10 (2): 82–101.Google Scholar
  3. Buckingham, David. 1997. “On the Impossibility of Children’s Television: The Case of Timmy Mallett.” In In Front of the Children: Screen Entertainment and Young Audiences, edited by Cary Bazalgette and David Buckingham, 47–61. London: BFI.Google Scholar
  4. Buerkle, Robert. 2014. “Playset Nostalgia: Lego Star Wars: The Video Game and the Transgenerational Appeal of the Lego Video Game Franchise.” In Lego Studies: Examining the Building Blocks of a Transmedial Phenomenon, edited by Mark J.P. Wolf, 118–152. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Edwards, Susan. 2010. “Numberjacks Are on Their Way! A Cultural Historical Reflection on Contemporary Society and the Early Childhood Curriculum.” Pedagogy, Culture and Society 18 (3): 261–272.Google Scholar
  6. Gardiner, Judith Kegan. 2000. “South Park, Blue Men, Anality, and Market Masculinity.” Men and Masculinities 2 (3): 251–271.Google Scholar
  7. Gardiner, Judith Kegan. 2005. “Why Saddam Is Gay: Masculinity Politics in South Park—Bigger, Longer, and Uncut.” Quarterly Review of Film and Video 22: 51–62.Google Scholar
  8. Geraghty, Lincoln. 2014. Cult Collectors: Nostalgia, Fandom and Collecting Popular Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Gournelos, Ted. 2009. “Blasphemous Allusion: Coming of Age in South Park.” Journal of Communication Inquiry 33 (2): 143–168.Google Scholar
  10. Gray, Jonathan. 2006. Watching with the Simpsons: Television, Parody, and Intertextuality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Home, Anna. 1993. Into the Box of Delights: A History of Children’s Television. London: BBC Books.Google Scholar
  12. Jenkins, Henry. 1993. “‘Going Bonkers!’: Children, Play and Pee-Wee.” In Male Trouble, edited by Constance Penley and Sharon Willis, 157–180. London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, Derek. 2014. “Chicks with Bricks: Building Creativity Across Industrial Design Cultures and Gendered Construction Play.” In Lego Studies: Examining the Building Blocks of a Transmedial Phenomenon, edited by Mark J.P. Wolf, 81–104. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Kirkland, Ewan. 2017. Children’s Media and Modernity: Film, Television, Digital Games. London: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  15. Langer, Mark. 1992. “The Disney-Fleischer Dilemma: Product Differentiation and Technological Innovation.” Screen 33 (4): 343–360.Google Scholar
  16. Larsen, David. 2001. “South Park’s Solar Anus, or, Rabelais Returns: Cultures of Consumption and the Contemporary Aesthetic of Obscenity.” Theory, Culture and Society 18 (4): 65–82.Google Scholar
  17. Leslie, Esther. 2004. Hollywood Flatlands: Animation, Critical Theory and the Avant-Garde. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  18. Messenger Davies, Máire. 2001. ‘Dear BBC’: Children, Television Storytelling and the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Messenger Davies, Máire. 2005. “‘Crazyspace’: The Politics of Children’s Screen Drama.” Screen 46 (3): 389–399.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Moritz, William. 2009. “Some Critical Perspectives on Lotte Reiniger.” In Animation: Art and Industry, edited by Maureen Furniss, 13–19. New Barnet: John Libbey.Google Scholar
  22. Moseley, Rachel. 2016. Hand-Made Television: Stop-Frame Animation for Children in Britain, 1961–1974. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Osmond, Andrew. 2017. “The Lego Batman Movie.” Sight & Sound 27 (4): 84.Google Scholar
  24. Pilling, Jayne. 1997. “Introduction.” In A Reader in Animation Studies, edited by Jayne Pilling, ix–xviii. London: John Libbey.Google Scholar
  25. Quigley, Marian. 2009. “Glocalisation vs. Globalization: The Work of Nick Park and Peter Lord.” In Animation: Art and Industry, edited by Maureen Furniss, 55–62. New Barnet: John Libbey.Google Scholar
  26. Rose, Jacqueline. 1984. The Case of Peter Pan, or, The Impossibility of Children’s Fiction. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Schulzke, Marcus. 2012. “Contentious Language: South Park and the Transformation of Meaning.” Journal of Popular Film and Television 40 (1): 22–31.Google Scholar
  28. Singer, Leigh. 2017. “The Year in… Animation.” Sight & Sound 27 (1): 46–47.Google Scholar
  29. Sobchack, Vivian. 2009. “Animation and Automation, or, the Incredible Effortfulness of Being.” Screen 50 (4): 375–391.Google Scholar
  30. Stables, Kate. 2014. “The Lego Movie.” Sight & Sound 24 (4): 77.Google Scholar
  31. Steemers, Jeanette. 2010. “The BBC’s Role in the Changing Production Ecology of Preschool Television in Britain.” Television & New Media 11 (1): 37–61.Google Scholar
  32. Varul, Matthias Zick. 2018. “The Cultural Tragedy of Production and the Expropriation of the Brickolariat: The Lego Movie as Consumer-Capitalist Myth.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 21 (6): 724–743.Google Scholar
  33. Wagner, Keith B., 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
  34. Wells, Paul. 2002. Animation and America. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BrightonBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations