What is animation and who needs to know?

An essay on definitions

Philip Kelly Denslow

There are many definitions of animation. The most obvious source of one, the Webster dictionary, says animation is:

a: a motion picture made by photographing successive positions of inanimate objects (as puppets or mechanical parts), b: Animated Cartoon, a motion picture made from a series of drawings simulating motion by means of slight progressive changes.

This is a fairly common understanding of the term animation, but it reflects a limited exposure to what the artform has to offer. Whether one agrees with it or not, the Webster definition is useful because one can learn something about who is doing the defining. In this case, the folks at G. & C. Merriam should be encouraged to attend an animation festival.

In the international animation community, many definitions have become established by various organisations and entities. We scholars, teachers and filmmakers would probably not be able to agree on a precise definition, but we would be able to compile a nice list of them. Definitions of animation vary from one another for many reasons, including historical development, production and marketing requirements, and aesthetic preferences.

The reason we are examining this issue is that no matter what definition you chose, it faces challenges from new developments in the technology used to produce and distribute animation. Is virtual reality a form of animation? Does computer-generated lifeform simulation qualify? What about the computerised recording of a mime's movements that are later attached to a character which is rendered a frame at a time? Do digital post-production techniques allowing for undetectable compositing and manipulation of live action scenes reduce the shooting of actors onto film to merely an image acquisition phase of the overall production? Is that production then in reality an animated film? Even a narrow definition of animation that excludes all but classic Disney character animation, and the consequent deification of gallery art from those films, is threatened by the computerised ink-and-paint process with its 'created cels' for the collector. All definitions of animation have to be re-thought in the context of changing technology.

The Association of International Film Animation (ASIFA) uses a definition that might be summed up as 'not live action'. This definition allows as many members as possible of the diverse international community of professionals, independents, amateurs, and audiences toparticipate. The purposeoforganisationslikeASIFA is to gain membership so as to sponsor activity. The more the merrier, as long as the identity of the group, the 'not live action' makers and fans, is not threatened. This bodes well for ASIFA's ability to absorb people interested in new technology, but the ASIFA sponsored festivals, like Annecy, will need to open new categories of competition if full inclusion is desired. ASIFA's name – the Association of International Film Animation (to crudely translate the French) – includes the technological restriction of the word film, which is becoming increasingly anachronisticas electronic and digital media replace chemical-based forms of production and distribution. For the audience, ASIFA's definition of animation is also becoming less useful as compositing techniques continue to improve, leaving less and less a margin of separation between the live action and the not-live action parts of a production.

Hollywood, or 'the industry' (by which I mean production companies that produce theatrical and television material in a factory-like method) has to define an animator by function. Union contracts, command hierarchy, and end-title credits all determine whether or not a worker is performing a task that is defined as animation. But when is an animator not an animator? The studio that produced the first seasons of The Simpsons television series declined to use the job title Animator as part of the process, preferring the term Character Layout for a worker that drew the key poses of a scene. Perhaps this was done to discourage ideas of grandeur and improved wages. The marketing of a studio's services can also influence the naming of that service. Computer-animation studios use the term Technical Director for the person who actually creates the animation on the computer system. Separating such people from the traditional studio animator because of the tools they use serves to highlight the uniqueness of the process for the benefit of clients, and could be a carry-over from the days when the systems used were too crude to create what could be marketed as animation. Most of these Technical Directors still think of themselves as animators, however.

Special Effects, a blurrily defined area of activity within a live action production, can include many methods that resemble animation in every way but by title. A feature film producer might feel more comfortable purchasing something with the name of...