Is calarts dead? Why are all the shows on the left shit in pic related then?
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Is calarts dead? Why are all the shows on the left shit in pic related then?
Is calarts dead? Why are all the shows on the left shit in pic related then?
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
>Is calarts dead?
No the school is still around and kicking. Also the right side has plenty of CalArts alumni.
All examples of corporate minimalism, Primal hides it the best though.
Pretending to be moronic.
>Pretending to be moronic.
How was that moronic? The CalArts meme always amounted to "style I don't like".
" Style" is a pretentious word for this primitive garbage. Shows like amphibia and the Owl House are all animated the same, you see the same poses and the same expressions. If you are lucky you see something custom. There is no distinctive signature of a skilled artist, which is the best definition of a style
Nope, it was a descriptor for corporate minimalism. Calarts was only unuseful because one side never engages in good faith, namely corporate shills.
Nice revision of history. The term was coined by John K to describe people who were trying hard to imitate Disney, specifically the Renaissance.
Which, in his mind, was an example of corporate minimalism (see his posts about shapes vs forms and the colors of anime).
The term was rebranded as the in house style of Cartoon Network changed to lean into corporate minimalism further and the rest of the industry followed suit, ironically stemming from a tool he shilled to high heaven, Flash.
But go ahead, tell me I don’t know the history, sycophant.
Lul at you trying to make Disney sound as good as possible. You groomers see history as only something to manipulate young people with, been true since I was 15 and earlier
Here's another typical tactic, pretending like the garbage people saw on TV is "everything". You also fail to help people learn that early Hanna Barbara had a lot of good qualities, after all they made fricking Tom and Jerry before they made TV cartoons.
The way you people describe animation history is designed to make people fricking idiots so they don't expect better from the animation industry of today
>Nope, it was a descriptor for corporate minimalism
You could apply that to almost fricking anything though, like all Hanna-Barbera cartoons looking the same
Agreed. Television Hanna-Barbera cartoons also had this stylistic problem. I’d say Filmation was even worse than what we have today. Unlike John K. I’m not going to play defense for crap he’s nostaligic for. Our revival era was 1989-2004 (or so).
>Our revival era was 1989-2004 (or so).
It really fricking wasn't. Corporate minimalism killed 90s animation and lead to the dark age of the 2000s.
>you're a corporate shill if you don't agree with me!
Also why would corporate shills encourage the use of CalArts as a pejorative when many people in the industry graduated from the industry.
You’re incredibly backwards.
The corporate shills are the ones who pretend like they don’t know what people mean when they say “calarts style” and make it about the institution, or John K. or anything other than corporate minimalism.
Same people who refuse to respond when you call tweening “flash animation” because UM ACTUALLY SWEATY IT’S DONE IN TOON BOOM, CHECKMATE
>The CalArts meme always amounted to "style I don't like".
No it doesn't you moron. It amounts to flat colors noodle limbs and bean shaped mouths. Why can't you just confront the actual problem directly instead of hiding behind straw men?
It’s been over a decade anon, these people are unable or unwilling to stand up to their corporate masters. It’s like talking to a brick wall.
>It amounts to flat colors noodle limbs and bean shaped mouths.
And before that it amounted to imitating Disney. The meaning keeps changing but pointing this out sends people into an autistic fit.
>Why can't you just confront the actual problem directly instead of hiding behind straw men?
Because you keep moving the goal post. FFS, Amphibia and Owl House have the exact things you're talking yet they're not considered CalArts.
Corporate Minimalism is the issue. You gonna respond to that or are you only gonna latch on to posts that trigger your script?
So if it is the issue, why don't Owl House and Amphibia fall under that? The creators even went to the school so the name isn't off base in their scenario. This is why the pic makes no sense.
But they do. The picture is disingenuous.
Now see, we agree on something.
i'm quite sure Dana didn't go to calarts at all
The issue has never been about a specific educational facility.
nice fricking goalpost homosexual, jesus christ man
It has NEVER been about a specific educational facility. There is no goalpost movement. See:
No one in the universe denies Amphibia is calarts style. But owl house clearly doesn't have bean mouth
Bean mouth is a symptom, not the root of the issue. You can have corporate minimalism and not look like AT at all. The debate has gotten lost in the weeds over the past decade. I hope to refocus the problem at the source, like Bauhaus anon tried and failed to do.
Both Bauhaus and CalArts failed because their centered the arguments on something that was barely related or not related at all to animation, muddying the issue. Honestly just keep the term corporate minimalism in usage and it should be smooth sailing.
Strawmen aren't real.
>Primal hides it the best though.
Because it's not corporate minimalism, that's just Genndy's art style.
Not until California gets nuked
If Calarts taught students to sell cans would they be better?
What is this image supposed to convey? Amphibia and the owl house are the same kind of thing, nothing you want to imitate if you want to make things that are good. It's sad that people actually study them in calarts and other schools. And Primal is by an actual Master animator which has great work, people need to stop putting it on the stunted preschool table
Frogshit and Mao Mao were obviously calarts
Yeah not sure how you can shit on shows like Adventure Time and Steven Universe for their art but give Amphibia a pass.
I hate labels, I'm going to kickstart a campaign to remove labels from everything
Even cans
>EAT THE FRICKING FAAAACE!
eleven years for that
We're moving from beanmouth to ball head
Why would a Carl Arts animator do plastic surgery?
>phoneposting
We can see your apostrophes
See? Anything other than the content of the criticism. ANYTHING.
No, a certain horse show's new series is calarts.
I hate it, the concept art looked way better.
Translating concept art to animation is hard anon. Incidentally, how is the new show?
Generic.
the 'style' of calarts is far from dead. I think we're beginning to see the slightest shift away from it but the issue much deeper than the homogony of art style. It's california, and all of the disgusting cliques and scumbags in entertainment that at least used to care about the craft when abusing kids/each other. now they don't even have that and don't see animation as a great medium to be cherished, preserved, and perfected, but a way to poorly express their anger at their middle-to-upper-class parents, flyover country, and indulge in this fetishization of trauma. It can all sink in the ocean, there's no saving the medium in the west if all of the new blood are mindless pigs who never actually demand better pay and working conditions while continuing to gleefully pump out an endless stream of garbage
concept art almost always looks better because it's closest to the intent of the author/artist and it hasn't yet been refined to an easy/easier-to-animate design that will be inherently stiffer than looser, expressive concept art. it's just how it is, though and just comes with art getting more complete/commercialized
I agree cartoons are for only for kids and if you want it to be more than that you're a total chud creepazoid
>there's no saving the medium in the west if all of the new blood are mindless pigs who never actually demand better pay and working conditions while continuing to gleefully pump out an endless stream of garbage
That's the old generation filled with boomers and xoomers. The new generation cares about better working conditions and putting out good stuff.
I hope so. I’ve been waiting a long time anon. When the boomers go, I hope to see the industry I care about see another revival.
> I hope to see the industry I care about see another revival.
It literally already happened in 2010.
nice sevens, but if you're referring to that #newdeal4animation thing then it's an incredibly naiive take. many of the demands can be met by cutting costs elsewhere or they're merely token things that ultimately won't make the execs pay out anymore. I have enough 2ndhand knowledge of a very powerful union in my state and know that negotiating for better pay and less hours is the last thing on the minds of the lead negotiators and I imagine it's the exact same thing in SoCal. most new shows (being pitched by people who look to be in their early 30s at oldest) look terrible and just seem like the most unbearable, boring, shlocky hoo-ha. entertainment is an institution, and one filled with predatory, disgusting people, and the cliques will keep things the way they are or burn the whole thing down rather than give it up to the next generation. it's not going to improve at in industry level unless the whole thing collapses in on itself
>I agree cartoons are for only for kids and if you want it to be more than that you're a total chud creepazoid
Alan Moore called cartoons a kids medium and it can never be more than cheaper entertainment.
Hating calarts is some major incel energy T B H. Like we get it, you're homophobic and don't get b***hes, maybe stop watching kids cartoons your creep.
I agree, anyone who doesn’t like what the industry does to cut corners needs to touch grass, and is clearly of lower social status than me, which is relevant to this board for some reason. No cap.
"Corporate minimalism" isn't the issue; a TV cartoon is never going to have the same time and budget put into it as you would a feature film. That's not a corporate conspiracy, it's just a fact of TV animation.
The real problem is execution; with enough skill and artistic vision you can make the most of a small budget to put together something visually pleasing. You saw it through the 90s and 00s; Genndy Tartakovsky even cited Evil Dead as an example of doing more with less. The problem is that the 2010s saw less skill and ambition when this new art style came about, either being Family Guy tier of stiff or horribly inconsistent.
Television animation alway requires some amount of corporate minimalism. I’d challenge you that the revival era of the 90’s and early 00’s showed a remarkable uptick in forms over shapes and stylistic diversity. We’re talking about the same thing, but i’d defend the corporate minimalism label.
In addition, we also have an entire industry, anime, to reference when talking about what could have been. Anime has it’s own design issues, but stylistic minimalism isn’t really one of them.
A lot of anime is pretty samey stylistically speaking. It's only once in a while that you get shows like Eizouken.
There is a common lineage for sure, but that common lineage is not “minimalistic” per se. Cut corners in anime come more from animation techniques, rarely the style themselves. Of course this becomes less relevant as anime has moved towards dynamism and away from the classical picturesque philosophy (ie. Sakuga over Dezaki-style flat images) and cartoons are moving from traditional animation towards puppet rigging, which necessarily limits expression anyway.
This has been happening since 2002. Sadly people were too busy sucking off the industry to actually criticize what was going on.
The 90s and especially the 00s had the same problems you were talking about. We've been in a decade long dark age yet no one cares until Adventure Time became infamous.
The 90’s had an explosion of stylistic diversity across the channels and individual shows. The post-WFRR and Nick vs CN arms race created a great situation for cartoon fans. Not to mention outsourcing to Japan put a lot of shows that valued forms over shapes on the airwaves. To claim it’s the same now is disingenuous at best. The 00’s was the decline, but I’d argue the first third or so was still notably better. The end of the 00’s was the worst of it though (the recession + learning new technologies like flash).
>To claim it’s the same now is disingenuous at best.
The early 90s was just the gross Klasky Csupo/Spumco look and the late 90s was that boring UPA look. Take off the nostalgia goggles.
That is a gross mischaracterization of the totality of the industry in those decades. Klasky and Spumco were only a part, Disney Television looked nothing like that (besides Schnookums and Meat) and you had BTAS-likes, Hanna-Barbera revivals, Warner stuff which even John K. Himself would attest wasn’t Spumco-like, etc.
There was a new wave of talent, but it was born from the same principles that got us there (Flapjack lineage). Ironically horse show was the biggest departure of that wave.
OK Groomer. You're describing a lot of garbage people wouldn't want to watch today, farmed out to the same Korean studios
Owl House just has some of Dana's flavor in the design and backgrounds. The character animation is the same garbage, repetitive and robotic and shared with all the other bad shows. What people are looking for is actual skilled artwork put together by people who can draw. Very few people in the world care about the TV shows you expect people to investigate in fine detail
if a show looks good what is the matter? I personally love Dana's drawing but the tweaked designs disney did for the show I don't like quite as much, especially when it is a flashback of an adult character as a kid
They all have these weird gigantic loomis heads that look weird as frick, Raine is the worst example of that, his kid version is unsettling
The dispute is if flat, simple, riggable designs look good. The less subjective side of the debate is if uniformity in minimalistic design principles is a good thing (in other words, even if you like it, isn’t there a problem with too many shows with the same philosophy?)
This. You morons suck off your corporate overlords too much.
IMO it depends from to show, I will not deny that there isnt a prevalent style right now, however, I disagree that every show looks the same.
For example, Ampihibia and Owl house obviously have similarities but ironically I like Amphibia's style better than the more anatomically correct owl house style and at the same time I dont think Amphibia style would work for owl house
This is why I feel like "the if looks good it doesn't really matter' approach
I will say that there are shows in this style that arr ugly, craig of the creek is one
>please notice me corporate over lord!
It really is like talking to a brick wall.
what the frick do you want me to say homosexual? I really don't get your point
>is there a prevalent artstyle in the cartoon industry right now
yes
>does it looks bad
depends on the show
>is it limiting
not really
>would want better animation
yes but i'm not delusional
>those similarities that do exist are a result of corporate cost cutting, with very few exceptions.
Is it? I know that for Owl House it is, but for Hilda, Amphibia or even Craig I don't think it is
and before someone post comic Hilda, the drawings are inconsistent as frick, you need a reference sheet for an animated series.
We differ here. Those shows are drawn the way they are because that’s what the industry is looking for, not the other way around. If you pitch something with any more effort than say, Glitch Techs, and you aren’t Genndy or doing an action show like Invincible (BTAS lineage still lives on), you’ll be laughed out of the room.
Then we agree, I agree with everything you just said, however I do think the style fit these specific stories, if this style is also more economic viable, so be it.
The real problem then becomes, "why are cartoons with stories that would not benefit from this style not being picked up by networks?", for example I wouldn't want a star wars-like cartoon in the same style as Amphibia.
It could be they are more expensive, it could be they have less of an audience
I think it’s fine to hold this opinion, at least we’re actually talking about the same thing for once. I’d offer two more clarifications:
1. Right now is short hand for at least 12 years, with no end in sight.
2. It’s not about shows “looking the same” (this was more of an issue in the early 2010’s and is no longer the true concern) the issue is that those similarities that do exist are a result of corporate cost cutting, with very few exceptions.
Is there a concrete definition of CalArts? Is there even an urban dictionary meaning of it? It's insane after all this time that people STILL don't know what it means.
Carl arts artists are not groomers
There is, but it’s gotten so muddy and a parody of itself that the label should be replaced with “Corporate Minimalism”.