Some Thoughts on
Theory-Practice Relationships in Animation Studies by Paul Ward
More pragmatic than
last week's text: “What is animation?”
Very wordy -
appeals to industry veterans (elitism?) → Happens everywhere
Large words are
shortcuts – might take two paragraphs to explain [with smaller
words]
Wasn't written for
first year students (haven't acquired the language)
Not
un-understandable – just not for you; exposure makes it
easier
Don't be put off –
engage with it; what you put in is what you get out
Find something
problematic in terms of understanding
“Legitimate
peripheral participation” ??? - I know the definitions of the
words but can't piece them together
“I shall
suggest how people working in animation might be located on this
continuum” - Ward mentions what “continuum” this is, but
does not define it clearly enough
“I think this
is to do with the way animation is often subsumed (?) within other
theoretical or disciplinary structures” - what other
structures?
“Animation as
a practice is often placed in a problematic relationship with those
technologies” - maybe I'm just not reading clearly enough, but
what problematic relationships?
Theoretical*
paradigms** → Takes 3 elephants to look up
*Educated guess;
not actual doing; not based in practice
**Two – as in
paradox
Structure?
An example, pattern
or model!
Model of a theory
(example)
“The world used
to be flat” - the best THEORY they had (paradigms =/= facts)
There is a paradigm
that animators are technicians – this text argues against that (a
specific paradigm for animation)
Paradigm =
understanding of what something is
Context: a urinal
becoming art by being placed in a gallery
For animation, it's
a preconception of being “artistic” - is computer animation still
animation? → Depends on the individual
What can
animation be?
Pedagogy
(ped-a-GOJ-y) = theory of teaching and learning
No comments:
Post a Comment