Graphics Reference
In-Depth Information
action
and
abstract action
. Each of these types of motion presents its own
range of possibilities and, as one might expect, its own particular difficulties.
For our purposes we can define naturalistic animation as any motion that is
associated with realistic and recognizable movements, organic or nonorganic,
undertaken in a completely believable manner. Although creating motion
of this kind could present difficulties that are not easily overcome, at least
identifying and studying the
nature
of movement is easy. Animators—and
more important, audience members—are able to compare naturalistic
animation against their own understanding of the real thing. Most of us
know how horses run, how children walk, how the surface of water ripples
in a breeze, and how smoke behaves; the list is almost endless. Because the
audience can easily recognize the
actual
motion of each of these things, the
demands placed on the animator are rather substantial; anything deviating
from the audience's first-hand experience will be instantly identifiable as
erroneous and the suspension of disbelief will fail. The study of naturalistic
movement for this kind of naturalistic animation may be a simple matter of
accessing the appropriate research material, including, of course, first-hand
experience.
Abstract motion, on the other hand,
may
be open to interpretation. This could
provide some leeway in the animation because it can't easily be measured
against any “real” equivalent. Abstract motion may take on a wide range of
actions, from cartoon characters designed in an abstract manner to actual
abstract shapes. Subjects for this approach to animation could appear
somewhere on a continuum ranging from the completely abstract movement
of abstract shapes, movement that relates to nothing in nature, to movements
more associated with cartoon animated motion. These may be recognizable
inasmuch as they represent familiar things (cat, mouse, dog) though they do
not move in ways that relate to that real-life thing.
At one end of that continuum we have the work of Oskar Fischinger, who
specialized in abstract shapes interacting with one another and synchronized
to sound. There is no motion within such work that we can measure against
our own first-hand experience of these things. At the other end of the
spectrum we have the work of animators such as Tex Avery, whose characters
often fail to behave in the manner of the things they represent. However, as
difficult as it may seem, animators working at either end of this continuum are
able to make animation if not “believable,” then at least convincing.
Study of this type of abstract animation may be more problematic, though
it is not impossible. Believability in this instance may be the attribution of
such qualities as the weight attributed to an object. Momentum and inertia
may still be applied to abstract animation, and in these cases the study of
momentum and inertia in nonabstract forms may be of value. The manner
in which birds fly or fish swim or the mechanical motion of machinery may
provide adequate reference and a good starting point for creating abstract
motion.
