What do you think?
Rate this book
A Reader In Animation Studies
Cartoons―both from the classic Hollywood era and from more contemporary feature films and television series―offer a rich field for detailed investigation and analysis. Contributors draw on theories and methodology from film, television, and media studies, art history and criticism, and feminism and gender studies.
- GenresNonfiction
283 pages, Paperback
First published May 22, 1998
2 people are currently reading
35 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 13, 2021
As Harvey Deneroff tells us in the introduction one of the pleasant side effects of the cartoon renaissance was the proliferation of animation studies and the creation of the Society of Animation Studies (SAS) in 1988, thus allowing animation film to be a serious topic of study. This reader tries to be a guide for new curricula in studies using papers presented before at SAS conferences. The 21 papers assembled are divided over five parts, and include contributions of well-respected names like William Moritz and J.B. Kaufman.
Unfortunately, the quality of the papers is highly uneven, and range from very interesting historical research to practically unreadable mumbo jumbo. Overall, judged by these papers, I'm less than impressed with art studies as a science. Most of the authors make no bones about posing theories and interpretations without any desire to prove them. Several contributions only make sense within the art discourse itself, and tell us surprisingly little about the films they thoroughly describe. Free interpretations, based on one or a few films are common, while any form of empirical research is completely absent, and only occasionally a maker is consulted.
Thus from most contributions one learns disappointingly little of the films, their makers or the context in which these films were made. Absolute low-points in that respect are the four contributions in the 'Theoretical Approaches' section. These papers are pure hogwash, and an embarrassment to the scientific field.
The best contributions keep a historical approach and eschew unfounded musings: William Moritz's papers on Bartosch's 'L'idée' (1932) and on animators working in Nazi Germany are highly informative, as are Mark Langer's study of the demise of 'Ren and Stimpy', and J.B. Kaufman's dive into the making of 'Saludos Amigos' and 'Three Caballeros' (later topped, of course, by his book, 'South of the Border with Disney: Walt Disney and the Good Neighbor Program, 1941-1948').
Unfortunately, the quality of the papers is highly uneven, and range from very interesting historical research to practically unreadable mumbo jumbo. Overall, judged by these papers, I'm less than impressed with art studies as a science. Most of the authors make no bones about posing theories and interpretations without any desire to prove them. Several contributions only make sense within the art discourse itself, and tell us surprisingly little about the films they thoroughly describe. Free interpretations, based on one or a few films are common, while any form of empirical research is completely absent, and only occasionally a maker is consulted.
Thus from most contributions one learns disappointingly little of the films, their makers or the context in which these films were made. Absolute low-points in that respect are the four contributions in the 'Theoretical Approaches' section. These papers are pure hogwash, and an embarrassment to the scientific field.
The best contributions keep a historical approach and eschew unfounded musings: William Moritz's papers on Bartosch's 'L'idée' (1932) and on animators working in Nazi Germany are highly informative, as are Mark Langer's study of the demise of 'Ren and Stimpy', and J.B. Kaufman's dive into the making of 'Saludos Amigos' and 'Three Caballeros' (later topped, of course, by his book, 'South of the Border with Disney: Walt Disney and the Good Neighbor Program, 1941-1948').
Displaying 1 of 1 review