All my publications on animation of the last twenty-three years are dedicated to animating film theory-not only addressing what animation adds to the theorizing of film but doing that adding, while trying to redress the marginalization of animation by film studies, film history, and film theory. For animation has been their blind spot. My animating (of ) film theory as film animation theory applies especially to the theorization of live action film through animation and responds to late 1960s French Marxist film theory and the Anglo-American film theory derived from it.1 Given that there is no way I can offer here a comprehensive rehearsal of my interventions over those twenty-three years, I ask the reader to consult my publications, especially my introductions to the anthologies I edited-The Illusion of Life: Essays on Animation (1991), the world's first book of scholarly essays theorizing animation, and The Illusion of Life 2: More Essays on Animation (2007)-which directly address film studies and film theory, as well as animation studies and animation theory.2 In this chapter I offer my key results to date, my "first principles" of animation.To ask the question, "By not writing about animated films, have theorists simply been prioritizing the live action film while still producing theory that is applicable to animation?," misses the key first point of my 1991 introduction in The Illusion of Life, which I reiterated in my essay in that anthology.3 It is a claim I still find to be radical, and it was made ten years before Lev Manovich's similar assertion.4 Let us call it our first "first principle" of animation: not only is animation a form of film but all film, film "as such," is a form of animation.Given all film by definition includes live action, live action is a form of animation. Consequently, film theorists have never not been writing
Este é um artigo publicado em acesso aberto (Open Access) IFoi o que a minha tia de 91 anos de idade, direto de Nova Jersey, falou ao telefone; eu estava em Sydney, no dia 4 de fevereiro do ano passado! Não lhe disse à época que, para nós, a animação jamais deixou de ser "o grande lance em filme", que, a cada encontro com o filme, há um outro com a animação-cinema, ou seja, com o filme live action. Sendo assim, não é o caso de que apenas recentemente, com o advento da animação digital, o filme tenha se tornado animação.Para nós, o filme jamais deixou de ser animação.Eis, então, a premissa-chave com a qual este artigo deslancha, a premissa-chave que entrelaça várias de minhas publicações sobre animação -não apenas é a animação uma forma de filme, mas o filme, todo filme, o filme como tal, é uma forma de animação.
<p>Alan Cholodenko (Nueva Jersey, 1940) no solo es uno de los teóricos más importantes de la animación, sino que ha hecho de la animación una forma de entender la vida. No hay arte sin ánima, sin deseo de insuflar vida; ni hay animación que no sea, en el fondo, ‘lifedeath’, vida/muerte, (re)animación. Con un pensamiento de corte postestructuralista, seguidor de sus mentores Jean Baudrillard y Jacques Derrida, Alan Cholodenko ha construido una sólida filosofía de la animación cuyo centro es el ‘aparato animático’ (‘the animatic apparatus’), un término esencial para comprender la revolución que implica las tecnologías de la imagen que vertebran la ciencia, la cultura y la sociedad actuales. En “El animador como artista, el artista como animador”, un artículo tan personal como penetrante, se expone el eje fundamental de su pensamiento en torno al dibujo como gesto seductor y deconstructivo.</p>
As we know, it is a cliché that what we see on the screen is ghosts, phantoms, spectres. What I propose in this essay is that that cliché be taken seriously—do I dare say it, ‘deadly’ seriously—be given rigorous analytic attention for its relevance to the thinking of cinema and its senses, while at the same time acknowledging that even the finest account must come face to face with the ‘fact’ that there is no ghostbuster, not even the analyst/theorist of cinema, not even the Marxist analyst/theorist of cinema, so powerful as to master, defeat and eradicate the spectre of cinema. It is a key premise of this essay that not only is the spectre a privileged subject of film but that it would be the ur figure of cinema, if cinema could have an ur figure, if the spectre could be an ur figure, a figure not only operating at every second at every level in every aspect of every film but also at the level of the cinematic, or rather animatic, apparatus of film, hence at the level of film ‘as such’.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.