But is it Animation?
Posted on 19. Oct, 2010 by Steph in blog
A conversation has sprung up in the Flip offices around the Cadbury’s finger advert, it was directed by someone who is friends with my other half so I, of course, was using it as bragging rights and asking people what they thought, but it’s brought up some questions.
Is it animation? or is it puppetry? and what is the difference?
Dictionary.com gives this definition on animate
an·i·mate verb, -mat·ed, -mat·ing, adjective –verb (used with object)
1. to give life to; make alive.
2. to make lively, vivacious, or vigorous; give zest or spirit to: Her presence animated the party.
3. to fill with courage or boldness; encourage: to animate weary troops.
4. to move or stir to action; motivate: He was animated by religious zeal.
5. to give motion to: leaves animated by a breeze.
6. to prepare or produce as an animated cartoon: to animate a children’s story.
So by the definition that to animate is “to give life; make alive.” isn’t puppetry a type of animation? What do you think?
Steph x
That is exactly what Paul Berner and I used to discuss while at Eight Eyed Sea Bass.
Puppetry is giving life to inanimate objects. Both animation and puppetry are extensions of an artist, and ways for people to ‘act’ without being in front of a camera themselves.
Dom
By definition this is ‘animation’ but, I think people generally see animation to be cartoons or special FX in movies etc!
Quite clearly this Finger Puppetry!
Hmmmmmmmmmm…………………….I think if you compare it to classic puppets, then it’s def an animation but what are Wallace and Gromit? I always think of them as animation but……hmmmmmm
@neenaw Wallace and Gromit uses stop motion and plastercine models – Where this is clearly puppets – so does that define the difference??
@Conor Lambert Oh dear…….
puppets can be used in puppetry and animation. But puppetry is live and in real time (think Gerry Anderson Productions)while animation isn’t….is it?
If the definition of the animation is ‘to give life’ , giving a character to an object (any object) and moving it consistently is basicly giving life to an object. So i think this one is exactly an animation. Just like puppetry and all the other techniques.
Simply put, No, it isn’t animation.
Animation is a technique (as is puppetry) and both are very distinct and different forms of art.
Some replies from Twitter:
AnimateProjects 1:46pm via Web
@FlipFestival But is it Animation? – Yes it is http://ow.ly/19wyUW
hardluck_hotel 1:40pm via TweetDeck
@FlipFestival Puppetry like The Muppets is not animation in the filmic sense as puppetry is an art form all on it’s own.
Caboomtweet 11:42am via TweetDeck
@FlipFestival An ongoing argument but yes it’s animation – it creates the illusion of character & movement using inanimate objects.
hardluck_hotel 10:43am via Web
@FlipFestival Interesting question. Stop Motion with puppets IS animation but does animation suit something like Muppets or Thunderbirds?
I’m moving my thoughts on this here as 140 characters is just not enough.
The question here is how we understand animation not as a definition from a dictionary but in filmic terms – in that sense animation is using 24 frames of film to create the illusion of movement. This can be achieved by moving puppets or by producing a series of drawing that mimic movement. This movement is then created by running the film at 24 frames per second.
Puppetry on the other hand is an ancient art form – going back 30,000 years. The illusion if life in this case is created in real time and not as the result of moving film at 24 frames per second.
If as some have stated her animation is simply bringing inanimate objects to life – surely full body puppets like Sweetums from the Muppets or Godzilla would also be classed as animation as this is an artist bringing life to an inanimate object – in this case the creature suit. The suit only becomes alive once the performer animates it. A puppet is a live action character, would you describe Yoda in the original Star Wars films as animation or a puppet? There is a distinction. Would a live action puppet film be considered for nomination under the Best Animated Film category at the Oscars?
Puppetry performed in real time either in front of a live audience or when captured on film is Puppetry and not animation. A puppeteer would not consider themselves an animator just as an 2D animator would not consider themselves a puppeteer. The disciplines are two completely separate art forms – although the lines are being blurred now with the use of digital puppetry, but even then digital puppeteers don’t consider what they do as computer animation as it involves performing characters in real time, rather than animating them frame by frame.
In purely film terms there is clearly a distinction between animation and puppetry – each is it’s own art form and the Cadbury example that kicked off this whole discussion is clearly puppetry with some digital enhancements and not created frame by frame.
Using that dictionary.com definition, you can also clearly see that bringing the dead back to life (i.e. zombies, ghosts, in some cases vampires) is also a form of animation.
It’s like an extension of puppetry when you think about it!
In a word, yes.
….Initially, I would definitely say not animation, I’d say Live action puppets…like MUPPETS…but after reading the dictionary about animation….it appears to be animation….but obviously a different kind of animation….i am sure Jim Henson wouldn’t say animation, so I say….not an animation. x
Hi,
re: animation definition, there is one on ASIFA website:
‘The art of animation is the creation of moving images through the manipulation of all varieties of techniques apart from live action methods.’
So as long as we talk about stop-motion type of animation involving puppets, then it’s fine. Filming moving puppets is not within the definition of the art of animation (in my opinion
).
No this is not animation. No dictionary definition will change that for me. This is ‘live action’ puppetry, plain and simple.