I’m pretty sure that I understand the point that Amid Amidi, and you, are trying to make. What I’m trying to get across is how I think that point is pompous and undeservedly elitist.

As Jake said, yes, “Home Movies” is indeed animation. Whether it’s good animation or not is up to viewers to decide. But when somebody suggests that because it emphasizes one thing, it doesn’t even qualify, that’s where the problem starts. It crosses the line from just saying “this works for me, this doesn’t,” and into appointing yourself as the Last True Defenders of the “ART” of Animation.

You say that animation was started by artists, but now it’s “run by writers,” and apparently, we’re all supposed to be wailing and tearing at our robes at the anguish of this horrible turn of events. I could just as easily say that it’s only when people started paying more attention to writing that animation started to mature, therefore writing is obviously the most important aspect.

I could say that, but I wouldn’t, because that would be an incredibly stupid thing to say. The best stuff comes from the right combination of art, words, motion, voice talent, sound, music, etc. Of all people, animators and followers of animation should realize that. A still drawing doesn’t become animation until you add motion, and by extension, all of animation is all about combining different art forms to make a composite that’s better than any individual part.

You seem to have backed off on your “Visual Design is KING!” stand, but that’s exactly the kind of attitude that permeates that website. But would “Gerald Mc Boing Boing” be any good without sound? Or any of the WB cartoons be as good without Mel Blanc’s voice? Does a well-designed character qualify as “high” art if it’s badly animated and doesn’t move well? And take a look at a lot of anime: you’ll see beautifully-designed machines, stunningly rendered with obscene amounts of detail, and they’re often put in service of an insipid or incomprehensible story.

The visual design of “Home Movies” isn’t the main focus or innovation of the series, obviously, and it’s not anything I’d hang up on my wall. But it’s not an afterthought, either; it does exactly what it needs to do. If you say “Brendan” or “Coach McGuirk,” I get an instant picture in my head, and it’s of those characters. (Even though I know what the voice actors look like in real life.) Simple as they are, the expressions (especially Brendan smacking his forehead) and the small details often sell the joke on that show; it’s more artistic than “Dr. Katz,” for example, because it’s not just a faithful recreation of a comedy routine. It’s actually creating characters and using visuals to drive the comedy routines home.

The reason I keep bringing up the UPA cartoon stuff isn’t just to pick on Amid, and it isn’t just to say that I don’t like 50′s character designs (even though I don’t, in general). It’s to show how the spirit behind much of that animation isn’t all that different from the Adult Swim and Home Movies you guys love to blame for ruining the art form.

Much of the stuff from the 50′s used jerky, limited animation because of budgetary constraints. Backgrounds were simple to non-existent. Character designs were loose and simplified. A lot of them tried to get more natural-sounding dialogue than the Disney features or Warner Bros shorts were using (and interestingly, long before mainstream live action made the move towards natural-sounding dialogue).

I’ve still got to say that it doesn’t sound to me like a bunch of people tirelessly defending the art of animation. It sounds more like a bunch of artists trying to assert their dominance and tirelessly defend their fragile egos.

THAT is the problem guys like Amid has, and that’s why he’ll post about it the way he does. So he cares about putting some good art into animation, why is that wrong? Some creators like to actually… you know, make some USE of the fact that animation is made with pure art and imagination and chose to actually do something creative and artistic with it, rather than move eyelids and mouth shapes randomly on ugly designs, just to sell some funny dialog to the audience.

I’d also like to point out that I find some of the situations in Home Movies to be funny. It is an entertaining show – It’s written like a sitcom, after all. And I would completely agree with the fact that “using animation captures and accentuates the voice performances in a way that no other medium can do.” But when Elmer Fudd, or Stimpy, or even Bender on Futurama (a closer comparison to the ‘animated sitcom’) talk and say funny things, they actually do some funny acting too. And they live in a world that has been created and thought of by artists. It’s just a… a nicer way to make entertainment, you know?

‘Knocked up’ or ‘There’s something about Mary’ don’t have the production values of 70′s informercials, do they? They could still be funny, but the film going audience wouldn’t accept it, would they? So why should late night cartoon watchers?

To be perfectly honest, and this has nothing to do with my argument and might just be a reason why I’m biased about the whole thing: The fact that ugly stuff like this is on the air just plain pisses me off… What happened to good taste?

The animation in Home Movies obviously hasn’t got anything resembling the same goals as traditional animation — the animation itself in Home Movies is clearly not good by any means — but using animation captures and accentuates the voice performances in a way that no other medium can do. It’s a huge strength of animation as a medium. This show hones in on that one strength of animation very specifically, makes excellent use of it, and a lot of people (normal people, even, not just the tasteless mouth-breathers!) pick up on that and appreciate the show.

Home Movies might not use the animated medium in the way that everyone agrees with artistically, or aesthetically, but going so far to imply that it’s “not animated” is hilariously pompous.

That’s Amid, though. He cares about the “ART” of animation and he lets everyone know about it, and doesn’t care if he’ll hurt anyone’s feelings along the way. Jerry’s the calm one who will share the general news and information, so perhaps you should look for his posts when reading Cartoon Brew. There you go, your problem solved!

But in Amid’s defense, the kind of innovation that you describe “Home Movies” has is certainly not the kind of thing Amid, or Cartoon Brew for that matter, is there to promote. Your defense stated that he uses natural dialog and applies it to animation. Is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO8CostDAL4 , animation? Seriously think about that question… Because all I see is a couple characters standing still, using a few random mouth shapes (rarely even timed to the words, by the way), and rapid eye movement. Oh, and they also tilt their head randomly, once in a while. Is the dialog funny? Yeah, I do find it funny sometimes. Is it quality animation? If you say yes, I think I’m wasting my time here.

Basically, when it comes down to it, a show like “Home Movies” presents something very simple to those who have paid attention to animation styles over time: The art and animation quality is a complete afterthought to the writing and dialog. That’s it in a nutshell. And that’s exactly what guys like Amid (and myself, coincidentally), really despise. Animation is an art form that can provide unparalleled creativity and artistic exploration (as you said in your post), and yet the majority of animated shows on television are being treated like sitcoms with crude ‘clicking’ drawings being thrown on top, simply to make it ‘presentable’. Yes or no? You could argue night and day that a lot of thought was gone into the artistic quality of “Home Movies”, but it would be a pretty horrible argument, and I think you know that.

The animation medium was started with artists. Animation was advanced and explored and pushed in different ways (like in the 50′s, the period you supposedly find ‘ugly’) by artists. Animation is now run by writers. Wait… what? What happened?

Perhaps my words can at least help you understand the ‘point’ of Amid’s opinion, whether you agree or not.

And to his credit, Amid linked to this blog post without comment, just calling it “interesting.” So score one to him for taking the high road.

Super L:
Well, I can’t really get on board with saying somebody has no right to judge a work of art unless his own output is good; most of the stuff I write on this blog is criticizing stuff that I’d never be able to make, after all. By that logic, since I failed as an animation major, I’d have no right to analyze or criticize anybody else’s work.

But yeah, my biggest problem with that site is the overwhelming bitterness, elitism, and complete dismissal of works, instead of acknowledging the creator’s intent and then saying that subjectively, it didn’t work for them. Especially since, as you say, they keep wrapping themselves in the corpses of Tex Avery and Walt Disney and acting as if they’re the last ones holding the torch in the name of True Animation Art.

I don’t personally like John K’s stuff at all, but I have to at least acknowledge his influences and the intent of what he’s trying to do. There’s an awful lot of vapid, lazy, and purely commercial-driven animation out there, which can be easily dismissed. But there’s also a ton of stuff that I don’t like, but can appreciate the spirit behind it.

joeP:
Mention “Family Guy” on here and you’ll get crucified, too. I can’t stand the show. To each his own, though.

SomeGuy:
No?!?!? I don’t?!?!? Why not pick a more loaded comparison, next time? I will say that I like that character design for Fonzie a ton better than the image on the Cartoon Modern blog banner. 99% the Ruby/Spears and Filmation and Hanna Barbera stuff from the 80s was completely bland and money-driven, but based solely on the aesthetics of a still frame, I’d prefer that over any of the art in this post, for example.

Now obviously, the ad spots, while still commercially motivated, were trying to create an perpetuate a style. While the TV series were mostly just trying to crank out product and appeal to some lowest common denominator. But the whole point was to show how dismissing something based on frames taken out of context is a stupid idea.

robiscus:
Whether Benjamin’s a dick in real life, or even in his stand-up routine, is kind of irrelevant. He’s consistently funny in every TV show I’ve seen him in, from “Dr. Katz” to “The Venture Brothers,” and he’s part of a group that’s bringing real innovation to animation, in the way voice talent is recorded. Second- and third-hand gossip about a guy isn’t going to change anybody else’s opinion. I’m inclined to dismiss it as the same type of annoying embittered gossip that plagues the Cartoon Brew site.

you know that guy has been in the industry a long time without doing anything of note. this should be a mystery of sorts if nearly everyone i know who has worked with him has agreed that he’s a nasty little prick that no one wants to deal with.

You think this is better than this?!?!?