Tag: cartoons

Continued from my last post “See You Space Cowboy…”

Let’s get some definitions out of the way.

Animation: a method in which pictures are manipulated to appear as moving images.

Wikipedia

This is not to be confused with puppetry.

Puppetry: a form of theatre or performance that involves the animation of puppets – inanimate objects, often resembling some type of human or animal figure, that are animated or manipulated by a human called a puppeteer.

Wikipedia

Ok. Some confusion. The definition of puppetry involves the word animation. Animation, therefore, has two definitions: the literal definition and the cultural definition. The literal definition of animation is:

“The act of animating or giving the appearance of movement through animation techniques.”

just believe me, ok?

The cultural definition of animation is specifically:

“the manipulation of pictures to simulate movement.”

see wikipedia definition

From now on, I will refer to literal animation in lower case and cultural Animation in uppercase.

Puppetry is technically animation, but by no means is it Animation. Unless pictures are involved.

All Animation is animation, but not all animation is Animation.

Got it? Good.

Now for some science stuff.

In order to work, Animation relies on two optical illusions. These illusions are called the phi phenomenon and beta movement.

Phi Phenomenon: an apparent motion that is observed if two nearby optical stimuli are presented in alternation with a relatively high frequency.

Wikipedia

Beta Movement: an optical illusion whereby viewing a rapidly changing series of static images creates the illusion of a smoothly flowing scene.

Wikipedia

Movies, television, videogames, entertainment as we know it would not exist without these optical illusions.

The phi phenomenon is difficult to describe. I like to think of it as a shadow that isn’t there. When two images alternate flashing at a high frequency, our brain perceives a shadow between flashes. The shadow looks as if its moving. But this shadow doesn’t exist. The flash is so quick, our brain has a hard time catching up. It doesn’t have enough time to register the image being gone before the image comes back. The brain cheats and makes you see a shadow. Almost as if it’s saying, “Dude, I thought it did something, but it’s still there so, let’s just pretend like nothing happened. Say what? I’m not crazy. You’re crazy.” Then the brain looks at the shadow it just created to cover its mistake and goes, “Wait… what’s that and why is it moving?” This is a grossly dumbed down explanation.

Max Wertheimer, the man who discovered this phenomenon, goes into more detail in his habilitation thesis. This thesis started Gestalt psychology; a school of thought that believes organisms perceive patterns rather than individual parts. Basically summarized as “the whole is more than the sum of its parts.”

The phi phenomenon makes you see something that’s not there. This phenomenon has a small part in beta movement, the illusion of movement between rapidly changing pictures. If images change at a speed greater than 10 frames per second, its perceived as movement. The optic nerve, the nerve that transmits light from the eye to the brain, cannot perceive changes in light faster than 10 frames per second.

Both the phi phenomenon and beta movement involve seeing movement that is not. They are the reason movies aren’t perceived as slideshows. But movies are slideshows. Movies are 200,000 picture slideshows. Next time you watch the new Star Wars movies, say you’re watching J.J. Abrams’ and Rian Johnson’s stupid PowerPoint presentation (I really didn’t like the new Star Wars movies). These PowerPoint presentations are what we call Animation.

Ok. Now we’re done with the science stuff.

Good because I hate science. I’m pretty sure I butchered those explanations.

Why go into detail about these optical illusions?

It’s important to understand how the definition of Animation changed over the years. Also, I like the idea of movies being compared to super fast PowerPoint presentations.

Time for some history stuff.

In 1879, an English American named Eadweard Muybridge used 24 sequential cameras to photograph a horse galloping. He did this to settle an argument: Do all four hooves of a horse leave the ground when they gallop? The answer was yes. He put the pictures in a zoopraxiscope, a device that was able to project sequences of pictures. This was the first movie. The zoopraxiscope was an early predecessor to the modern movie projector.

The zoopraxiscope was not new, however. It was developed from a device made 46 years before the first movie. In 1833, the phénakisticope was invented and introduced the world to stroboscopic Animation. The phénakisticope was a cardboard disk surrounded with several similar drawings in different positions. When the disk was spun, the drawings would move. This gave way to new technology such as the zoetrope in 1866, the flip book in 1868, the praxinoscope in 1877, Muybridge’s zoopraxiscope, and eventually cinematography.

The first photograph was made 11 years before the phénakisticope, but photography was in a primitive state. One photograph took anywhere from 8 hours to several days to produce. The idea of putting real life pictures onto a phénakisticope-like device wouldn’t be realized until some British dude argues about horses 36 years later.

The first forms of Animation were made with drawings. The second form was made with photographs. These were live action movies. Technically, live action movies are Animation, they are a bunch of pictures used to simulate movement. But the modern definition of Animation changed to be synonymous with drawings. More specifically with cartoons. There are movies and film. There are cartoons and Animation.

But cartoons and Animation aren’t mutually exclusive. Cartoons are something else entirely.

Cartoon: type of illustration, sometimes animated, typically in a non-realistic or semi-realistic style.

Dictionary.com

The cartoon was originally defined as a drawing intended for caricature or satire.

Cartoons can be animated, or they can be in the funnies of your newspaper. Animation can be made with cartoons, but Animation is not always drawings meant for caricature or satire. Animation is sometimes Spirited Away, Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse, or Toy Story (if you think any of those movies are meant as caricature or satire, know that you’re wrong and no one likes you).

Cartoons are a genre within Animation. I would argue live action movies are too.

But at some point, live action movies separated itself from the word Animation like an angsty teen too cool to be seen with his parents.

I get why though. He was too different. Like every teenager, he needed his own identity. But he didn’t have to spit on his parents after he did it, calling them inferior and incapable of meaning anything.

Now cartoons and animation mean the same thing. Both can be satirical. Both can be profound and emotional. They have become mutually exclusive so its easier for people to understand.

Fair enough.

But why are Cartoons associated with children?

Because of false equivalencies.

“Caillou is meant for children. Caillou is a cartoon. Spirited Away is a cartoon. Therefore, Spirited Away is meant for children.”

Do not show your children Spirited Away. Beautiful movie. Terribly sad. Also, nightmare fuel.

The reaction to this “cartoons are for children” stereotype created a new genre within the cartoon world, a genre specifically created to subvert expectations: adult cartoons. Cartoons such as The Simpsons, South Park, and Family Guy. A genre specifically made to be vulgar, violent, grotesque, and offensive. This genre did nothing but further damage the meaning of cartoon.

This post is becoming a lot longer than I intended.

To be continued…

Here’s the japanese trailer for Spirited Away.