Session Date and Time: Friday, February 27, 2009 2:30 PM – 5:00 PM
Concourse Meeting Room 408B, Level 2, Los Angeles Convention Center
THINKING EXPERIMENTAL ANIMATION
BEFORE WILLIAM KENTRIDGE: AN ART HISTORICAL U-TURN
SESSION STATEMENT
Chair of Session: Dr. Janeann Dill
Experimental
animation was presented as fine art by its creators long before the art
world acknowledged William Kentridge's work, the widely-accepted marker
to distinguish animation a "legitimate" language in fine art. Looking
beyond the constraining nomenclature of cartoon inherited from Sergei
Eisenstein and forwarded by Gilles Deleuze and Rosalind Krauss, this
panel visits an earlier history of art practice and critical thinking
in experimental animation that was passed over by art history and then
relegated to film history, where it was equally ignored. Considered
neither art nor film, experimental animation dropped out of critical
consideration entirely from its 1921 origins in the first experimental
animation film, Opus I by Walter Ruttmann, until the early
1970's with the writings of Louise O'Konor (on Viking Eggeling),
Standish Lawder (on experimental film), William Moritz (on Oskar
Fischinger), and Jeanpaul Goergen (on Walter Ruttman). With seminal
texts by P. Adams Sitney, Visionary Film: The American Avant-Garde (1974), and Cecile Starr and Robert Russett’s Experimental Animation: An Illustrated Anthology (1976), a nascent canon of critical art history in experimental animation was formed.
Progeny
to Modernism’s belief that the human condition is comforted by new
technology to enable the spiritual, sensual, and rational in art,
contemporary experimental animation offers a resolve to fulfill
pictorial ideas in time. Inherently, experimental animation is an
aesthetic to pulse rhythmic separations between space and time as
invisible interstices in a frame-based consciousness of expression and
perception, projection and reception. From the technologies of optical
toy to electronic imaging, a space-time continuum (Eisenstein’s posit
of dynamism) is understood here as a kind of drag or pressure at the
interval of singular frames in motion to create an invisible tension
that is gravity-like in its timing. In the creative practice of
animation, technical considerations are symbiotically tied to
aesthetics to render a distinction between movement in time and timing
as animation. The foundational principles of animation adhere to laws
of timing motion, e.g., bouncing ball, walk cycle, and waveform. Beyond
the concept of “art in motion,” when these foundational principles are
not operating in some degree as rhythmic timing, movement occurs absent
animation.
Rooted in the art historical trajectories of
experimental animation, experimental film, digital art and expanded
cinema, this panel links the critical histories of art, film, and
philosophy as one. This session serves not only to excavate its
panelists’ individual research, but, collectively, to engender a
critical authority previously languishing.
PANELISTS/ABSTRACTS
Thought and Timing In the Round: Muybridge, Engel, Deleuze
Dr. Janeann Dill, Institute Director, IIACI: Institute for Interdisciplinary Art and Creative Intelligence (Think Tank)
Along
with Sergei Eisenstein and Rosalind Krauss, Gilles Deleuze perceives
animation at the level of single-frame technology and names all
animation “cartoon.” For Deleuze, there are conditions that determine
cinema. His critique involving films previously positioned within the
terrain of experimental animation is excavated in this paper and put
forward as compelling critical thought to place experimental animation
outside cinema. Deleuze is alert to the implications of Muybridge’s
“horse’s gallop” as an historical change of status in movement in
painting, dance, ballet and mime to release values that are not posed.
Jules Engel’s Accident (1973) is a two-fold work of
lithography and experimental animation to equally assert this awareness
in the history of art, cinema, and experimental animation. Aside from
a surface language of animal locomotion, the primacy of the frame as a
principle of timing acceleration, deceleration and variation is
fulfilled in the collective Muybridge, Engel and Deleuze.
Pat O'Neill: The Old Dodge and the Rhizome, On the “Experimental” and the “Real”
Professor Erika Suderburg, Departments of Art, Media and Cultural Studies, and Dance, University of California, Riverside.
This paper examines Pat O'Neill's two feature length films Water and Power (1989) and The Decay of Fiction
(2002) and their relation to the conceptual and geographic topography
of Southern California, the mechanics of the optical printer, and the
history of experimental cinema in relation to place, memory and imaging.
An Art of Radical Juxtaposition: The Expanded Cinema of Stan VanDerBeek
and Robert Breer
Dr. Andrew V. Uroskie,
Assistant Professor, Modern and Contemporary Art, Photography and the
Moving Image, Department of Art and Affiliate Faculty, Comparative
Literary and Cultural Studies, Stony Brook University.
This
paper takes up the discourse of assemblage in the early 1960s as a way
of reconceptualizing the terrain of animation within which the
practices of Robert Breer and Stan VanDerBeek have long been
considered. As a merely pictorial conception of collage was giving way
to a more wide-ranging model of assemblage as environmental
juxtaposition, these artists sought to rethink the institutional norms
and spectatorial preconceptions regarding film’s material form, site,
and mode of encounter. Already known for refusing both the “deep
space” of the theatrical feature film and the two-dimensional field of
modernist “visual music,” their work underwent a further transformation
within their site-specific cinematic interventions. Examining Breer’s
cinematic performance within Stockhausen’s Originals (1964) and VanDerBeek’s “Movie Mural” for Cage’s Variations V
(1965), I show how an interdisciplinary, intermedia practice of
expanded cinema was then emerging as a radical extension of the
assemblage tradition.
Signature as Sense and Sensation: Animating Affect as Musical Diagram
Dr. James Tobias, Assistant Professor, Cinema and Digital Media Studies, University of California, Riverside.
Digital
appropriations of modernist animation or accounts of modernism as
prosthesis together prompt renewed questions about the ethical
dimensions of artwork on the interstices of aesthetics and technics.
Reading for sense and sensation in Fischinger's 1947 animated film Motion Painting #1
prompts a different account of ethics, aesthetics, and technics.
Rendering visible the modern's invisible materialities (Kesting’s
clockwork of energetic time; Bloch’s alternative “carpet motif” history
of industrial modernity) in science, art, or philosophy could leave the
untutored in the dark. Motion Painting #1 animated the
concerns of transmedial modernisms where inventing technics was
requisite to stylizing an accessible, ethical aesthetics of modern
materiality as affect. Identifying the ethical dimensions of work
marginalized yet widely sampled expands notions of authorial signature.
Where inventing machines accompanies aesthetic advances, a signature
effect (beyond a work’s “hand” or a patent application) emerges between
the sense composed for, and the sensation generated in, reception.