My experience in animation is just the reverse of yours, Coleen. I started out with stop motion, learning new skills and styles/mediums by making a short film. Now I work on a digital project with a colleague, and I so miss the hands on struggle of stop motion. I love how each medium and character has a life of its own that directs the process even more than me. I miss the mistakes that then miraculously turns into something amazing. Digital is just too predictable/final/clear cut. I love the unpredictability and surprises of stop motion and hand made films.
There's something special about analog animation processes for sure. That's why I try so hard, probably—I want to get faster at it because inefficiency can be both fun/fruitful and a total, demoralizing drag. I'm probably the biggest fan of serendipity and unintended discovery. Sometimes though it's just about moving something from A to B so I can get to something I enjoy more, and that's mostly what I miss about digital.
Congratulations (again) on the new fellowship! That's incredible. And continue to love watching how the process/equipment/workspace behind this new film develop. As always, TLB is a peek into this stuff that doesn't exist almost anywhere else.
One thought about your friend's question -- it's interesting to consider. Creating a film "perfectly to spec and vision with zero time or effort" gets talked about a lot these days. And we've been thinking lately about how much of the best material emerges from the time and effort itself.
Miyazaki popped up in this one -- he's a good example. All of his productions were made up primarily as they went along (including the storyboards), and each shot was a series of creative and technical problems solved in the moment, as the whole team fought to make it "work." The films radically evolved as they were created. There's also what Pixar once called its "from suck to nonsuck" system. The films were wrestled into shape with time, effort and trial-and-error, because most of them were bad at first! Made to spec and vision, they would've been unwatchable.
All of which is to say that the process for your new film is very cool, and feels like an answer to the instant-turnaround, no-thinking, no-solving approach that's spreading right now. Sorry for going on so long -- your friend's comment just offered a lot of food for thought. Thanks for another awesome issue!
Thank you so much for this incredible comment. (I love long comments by the way!) And for the kind congratulations—I’m really excited.
As a long-practicing designer, I’m a huge proponent of iteration (as you can probably tell) and what you just said about Miyazaki and his process resonates *so* much with me. You start with a plan and a direction, an idea—but mostly a lot of questions and hypotheses. I think in both design and art, the most robust “product” is one that makes it to the end having “responded” or “adapted” to, as opposed to “fighting” or “resisting,” the process and all the things that come to light in the duration. There’s so much to be said for flexibility and humility, too—I don’t mean with the audience, or the process, even—but with the story itself.
I think that’s a big flaw with algorithmic/formulaic making: a lack of humility. Because there’s this almost belligerent assumption that the story is already a known. And in my experience, that is never really the case. I could go on but really, stories would be much better served in general if they were given more room, and opportunity, to reveal themselves. An artist who is open can react to discoveries. Those reactions can encourage more revelations, and so on. This is the ideal process IMO. It sounds a lot like I’m describing a conversation, and not to be super Lynchian but I think that's kind of what it is.
I love the Pixar example you gave, too, and what dead things the films would have been without this conversation.
I can’t imagine that any artist would truly be interested in a process-less process. Also, let's be honest, suffering is a lot of the fun :)
Wowza, Coleen. Your words here resonate. The type of work I do (strategy) is one that many interpret as formulaic and lacking humility because so many people do it so poorly and in environments that lack soul or spirit. it’s a word/function/skill set that has been bastardized to such a degree that I’ve struggled at times to proudly associate myself with it, despite my clear affinity towards it. But a series of recent events has led me to start realizing what I do as truly a craft (if this makes you roll your eyes, you may find comfort in knowing that I’m doing it too…alongside holding conviction for this statement).
I would never want to dilute the integrity of the word artist (and won’t!), but am realizing that my training and approach to my version of art has parallels to those of artists and designers. This may explain my forever appreciation for learning about/from artists’ processes. And so your comment hits on a few things that I’ve been thinking about lately and gives me more food for thought. Thank you dearly.
Catherine, thank you for this! I love it when conversations happen here with crossover into other domains! Reminds me how much, and how much more, most of us can connect on the "creative process," and the idea of craft. Also—it's very clear that what you do is a highly skilled labor of love. Thanks so much for reading and connecting <3
Love love loved this one
Thank you so much, as always.
Love your essays and processes you share.
And thanks for your kind words :)
My experience in animation is just the reverse of yours, Coleen. I started out with stop motion, learning new skills and styles/mediums by making a short film. Now I work on a digital project with a colleague, and I so miss the hands on struggle of stop motion. I love how each medium and character has a life of its own that directs the process even more than me. I miss the mistakes that then miraculously turns into something amazing. Digital is just too predictable/final/clear cut. I love the unpredictability and surprises of stop motion and hand made films.
There's something special about analog animation processes for sure. That's why I try so hard, probably—I want to get faster at it because inefficiency can be both fun/fruitful and a total, demoralizing drag. I'm probably the biggest fan of serendipity and unintended discovery. Sometimes though it's just about moving something from A to B so I can get to something I enjoy more, and that's mostly what I miss about digital.
Congratulations (again) on the new fellowship! That's incredible. And continue to love watching how the process/equipment/workspace behind this new film develop. As always, TLB is a peek into this stuff that doesn't exist almost anywhere else.
One thought about your friend's question -- it's interesting to consider. Creating a film "perfectly to spec and vision with zero time or effort" gets talked about a lot these days. And we've been thinking lately about how much of the best material emerges from the time and effort itself.
Miyazaki popped up in this one -- he's a good example. All of his productions were made up primarily as they went along (including the storyboards), and each shot was a series of creative and technical problems solved in the moment, as the whole team fought to make it "work." The films radically evolved as they were created. There's also what Pixar once called its "from suck to nonsuck" system. The films were wrestled into shape with time, effort and trial-and-error, because most of them were bad at first! Made to spec and vision, they would've been unwatchable.
All of which is to say that the process for your new film is very cool, and feels like an answer to the instant-turnaround, no-thinking, no-solving approach that's spreading right now. Sorry for going on so long -- your friend's comment just offered a lot of food for thought. Thanks for another awesome issue!
Thank you so much for this incredible comment. (I love long comments by the way!) And for the kind congratulations—I’m really excited.
As a long-practicing designer, I’m a huge proponent of iteration (as you can probably tell) and what you just said about Miyazaki and his process resonates *so* much with me. You start with a plan and a direction, an idea—but mostly a lot of questions and hypotheses. I think in both design and art, the most robust “product” is one that makes it to the end having “responded” or “adapted” to, as opposed to “fighting” or “resisting,” the process and all the things that come to light in the duration. There’s so much to be said for flexibility and humility, too—I don’t mean with the audience, or the process, even—but with the story itself.
I think that’s a big flaw with algorithmic/formulaic making: a lack of humility. Because there’s this almost belligerent assumption that the story is already a known. And in my experience, that is never really the case. I could go on but really, stories would be much better served in general if they were given more room, and opportunity, to reveal themselves. An artist who is open can react to discoveries. Those reactions can encourage more revelations, and so on. This is the ideal process IMO. It sounds a lot like I’m describing a conversation, and not to be super Lynchian but I think that's kind of what it is.
I love the Pixar example you gave, too, and what dead things the films would have been without this conversation.
I can’t imagine that any artist would truly be interested in a process-less process. Also, let's be honest, suffering is a lot of the fun :)
Wowza, Coleen. Your words here resonate. The type of work I do (strategy) is one that many interpret as formulaic and lacking humility because so many people do it so poorly and in environments that lack soul or spirit. it’s a word/function/skill set that has been bastardized to such a degree that I’ve struggled at times to proudly associate myself with it, despite my clear affinity towards it. But a series of recent events has led me to start realizing what I do as truly a craft (if this makes you roll your eyes, you may find comfort in knowing that I’m doing it too…alongside holding conviction for this statement).
I would never want to dilute the integrity of the word artist (and won’t!), but am realizing that my training and approach to my version of art has parallels to those of artists and designers. This may explain my forever appreciation for learning about/from artists’ processes. And so your comment hits on a few things that I’ve been thinking about lately and gives me more food for thought. Thank you dearly.
Catherine, thank you for this! I love it when conversations happen here with crossover into other domains! Reminds me how much, and how much more, most of us can connect on the "creative process," and the idea of craft. Also—it's very clear that what you do is a highly skilled labor of love. Thanks so much for reading and connecting <3
Great points here! This whole line of thinking feels really important right now, maybe more than ever.
Beautiful work, Coleen - I also love seeing NY in winter! Congratulations on your MacDowell Fellowship!
Thank you so much Eunsoo!!