Experimental vs. Orthodox

I took a history of animation course last semester and this reading reminded me of a lot of the concepts we had studied in that class. It seems to me that realistic representations of human like characters was a logical starting point for the art of animation to develop from. Just like with most other visual art forms, animators started out creating the familiar. Not till awhile later do we see abstract experimental creations. The same was true of filmmaking in the very beginning. Until the works of George Melies, there were not any major filmmakers who attempted to do anything more than film the action in front of them. Although innovative, Meliese chose to follow a linear story line. Not until many years later did experimental film make its first début, but as with filmmaking, painting, and sculpture, animators eventually did take the same leap into the abstract. The diagram in the Wells article makes it seem as though experimental animators chose to go against the orthodox methods of animation in any way they could find how. Although this is a valid point, I do not personally think that these decisions were consciously made. I feel as if these artists chose to represent their thoughts and ideas in a different way from the norm, and then later scholars and writers decided to classify these ways as the opposite of the conventional. Some of these differences can be accounted for just by taking a look at the mode of production each type of animation was created in. Your typical cell animations have many people working on them from start to finish. It is difficult for a presence of any one particular artist to remain in a work touched by so many. It is also difficult to imagine collaborating such a large group of people to work on any abstract, but unified concept. I think with this mode of production, simple linear story lines and gags were the only way to go.
Experimental animators usually have a small budget to work with and only a few people who are involved in the artistic process. Because of this they have to come up with new, cost effective ways to accomplish their goals. The existence of the artist is strongly present in their work for both of these reasons. One’s artistic style is much more prevalent in a work they did by themselves then in a work they did with a hundred others. I do believe that experimental animation is more thought provoking and draws attention to the tools used to create it, as is true for experimental film as well. This type of work is tailored to a different audience then conventional cartoons, or sometimes not tailored to any audience at all. Cartoons (in the Disney, Warner Bros sense) are created for the purpose of entertainment and to make money. Experimental animations are created, among other things, for the love the medium and the visually stimulating. Whos to say a red dot traveling across a screen isn’t a character in itself? I’m very excited that I get to work with animation in this environment. We get to play around with the medium and bring out aspects that interest us, not for the goal of revenue or even being liked, but for the experience in itself. That I believe is the major difference between the two types of animations discussed in this article. Orthodox animation, to me, seems more like a job, while experimental animation is pretty much whatever you want it to be.