[-empyre-] chris sullivan p.S.

[christopher sullivan]

also check out Minneapolis Tom Schroeder's Yellow bird.
www.mnartists.org/tourItemDetail.do?action=detail...203429

Quoting Eric Patrick <ericp at northwestern.edu>:

> I love that idea about animation creating its own space...  as has already
> been mentioned in regards to Svankmajer, but also more directly by the
> Israeli animator Gil Alkabetz or the German Raimund Krumme.
> http://animationpimp.animationblogspot.com/2007/11/16/fake-exit-signs-raimun
> d-krumme-1996-2004/
> 
> I think Donald Crafton was recently presenting a paper following that thread
> through historically at the Chicago film seminar.  The title as I recall was
> "Animation as Autophagy."
> 
> ep
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/15/10 11:11 PM, "christopher sullivan" <csulli at saic.edu> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > An interesting thing to think about in terms of form, extremes of
> crudeness
> > and 
> > rough edges that are a big part of people like Phil Mulloy, Paul
> Fierlinger,
> > Don
> > Hertzfeld, Lewis klahr, Martha Collburn, William Kentridge, Yuri Norstien
> (I
> > don't think I spelled one of those correct, but time is too precious. All
> of
> > these animators expose the material elements of there work, and in ways
> force
> > a
> > two dimensional reading of the film surface, Illusion of space it fleeting
> > when
> > there at all. Yuri Norstien at a talk here in Chicago spoke of how he
> feels
> > that the closer you get to an illusion of reality, the farther you get
> from
> > what makes animation it's own language. what do people think about
> illusory
> > and
> > non illusory cinematic space in animation? Is photo realism, not animation
> > anymore but digital cinema?
> > have you seen this stuff. very interesting.
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_1zzPCnyOI&feature=related
> > 
> > 
> > Quoting christopher sullivan <csulli at saic.edu>:
> > 
> >> by the way, I show power and water in my "not quite animation" day in my
> >> alternative animation history class. It is a wonderful film. you should
> all
> >> try
> >> to get Pat out to show The Decay OF Fiction, his amazing film, that
> >> unfortunately he does not like, but I sure do. Chris.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Quoting christopher sullivan <csulli at saic.edu>:
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> Hi Eric, I do think that certain technologies or circumstances dictate
> >> trends
> >>> in
> >>> work. For instance the non verbal history of independent art films in
> the
> >>> 70's
> >>> and 80's, was directly related to issues of french versus English in
> >> Canada,
> >>> and the fact that the Netherlands, Italy, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia,
> >> where
> >>> important places that could not count on language to engage a wider
> world.
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> And for that matter the frame by frame process does break down time and
> >> lead
> >>> to
> >>> different ways of looking at the world. But I am questioning starting
> with
> >>> formal notions of Code, or digital culture as subjects. I guess it gets
> >> back
> >>> to
> >>> notions of modernist painting, which is about putting color on a flat
> >>> surface. 
> >>> All of the great works that I am attracted to in animation, have
> something
> >>> inherently frame by frame about them, but there is an underlying content
> >>> that
> >>> is being negotiated.
> >>> 
> >>> I think that animation because of it's labor, tends to give birth to the
> >>> wondering pilgrim, the emptied city, the lone figure in a minimal world,
> >>> because you just can't draw fifty people, CGI is changing this, but
> these
> >>> limits are good too. They are like the limits of independent theater, no
> >>> dance
> >>> numbers, no effects, just words and a few bodies. I also think that the
> >>> limits
> >>> of animation, create a need to condense time, in ways that live action
> >> does
> >>> not.
> >>> and this leads to it's odd sense of time, I hope you have all seen Cat
> >> Soup,
> >>> amazing time play in that film.
> >>> 
> >>>  
> >>> Quoting Eric Patrick <ericp at northwestern.edu>:
> >>> 
> >>>> Hello All,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Eric Patrick here.  Rather than repeat my bio, I'll just jump right
> >>>> in...  I've been making animated films now for twenty years, and the
> one
> >> 
> >>>> thing I've become convinced of is that animation is a ritual act.  My
> >>>> own work underscores this in it's experiments with narrative without
> the
> >> 
> >>>> confines of character development or plot...  rather, I often find
> >>>> myself creating associative connections over causal ones.  I'm
> certainly
> >> 
> >>>> not the first that has noticed this, but perhaps all animators find it
> >>>> on their own terms...  small repetitive acts, done over long periods of
> >>>> time...  a withdrawal from day to day life.  The very act seems like a
> >>>> description of an alchemist's chamber, saying a rosary, kabuki theatre.
> >>>> 
> >>>> In my particular case, I choose a technique that in some way comments
> on
> >> 
> >>>> the ideas embedded in my work.  This is one of those things that I find
> >>>> to be unique about animation (though I would argue that new media has
> >>>> this ability too): the ability to orchestrate the concept into the very
> >>>> fabric of the image through the technique that is utilized.  It's that
> >>>> relationship between form and content that makes animation quite so
> >>>> unique.  That these techniques involve increasingly preoccupied states
> >>>> of consciousness only adds to the ritual effect of animation.  It's no
> >>>> wonder then that we can see such a wide interest in metaphysics
> >>>> throughout animation history.
> >>>> 
> >>>> As an animator stepping into a group dedicated to new media, I'm
> >>>> interested in finding where my experience may cross over with yours.
> >>>> Perhaps we can also weave with Chris Sullivan's intro, because, as he
> >>>> states that technology is a tool but not a subject, I am almost
> >>>> inferring that the process can become a subject.  I have shown Pat
> >>>> O'Neil's work "Water and Power" to students, and interestingly, they
> >>>> told me that it completely changed their relationship to after effects.
> >> 
> >>>> O'Neil's work somehow seems like it could only be conceived and
> executed
> >> 
> >>>> on an optical printer, though it can obviously very easily be created
> >>>> with something like after effects.  While I agree that technology is a
> >>>> tool, do certain tools not engender certain kinds of work?
> >>>> 
> >>>> best,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Eric
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Christopher Sullivan
> >>> Dept. of Film/Video/New Media
> >>> School of the Art Institute of Chicago
> >>> 112 so michigan
> >>> Chicago Ill 60603
> >>> csulli at saic.edu
> >>> 312-345-3802
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> empyre forum
> >>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> >>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Christopher Sullivan
> >> Dept. of Film/Video/New Media
> >> School of the Art Institute of Chicago
> >> 112 so michigan
> >> Chicago Ill 60603
> >> csulli at saic.edu
> >> 312-345-3802
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > Christopher Sullivan
> > Dept. of Film/Video/New Media
> > School of the Art Institute of Chicago
> > 112 so michigan
> > Chicago Ill 60603
> > csulli at saic.edu
> > 312-345-3802
> 
> 
> 


Christopher Sullivan
Dept. of Film/Video/New Media
School of the Art Institute of Chicago
112 so michigan
Chicago Ill 60603
csulli at saic.edu
312-345-3802