Academiacs

By now, I should have a character I want to write an essay about. I do. As you've seen, I've written an extensive blogpost about Wakko and his siblings. I should also have thought of a question to address, some key points to raise and probably some academic sources to draw information from. No. See, there's a big gaping hole of information here.
If I wanted to write about Bugs Bunny, there's a million academics publishing books by the thousands with varying opinions and perspectives addressing millions of different things. Did Bugs Bunny help America through the Depression? To what does Bugs Bunny lend his popularity? Does Bugs Bunny's inner-humanity affect how we relate to him? There's a lot people want to write about that rabbit. He had a huge impact on the older generation, those who're now in their 40's and 50's. The same goes for Mickey Mouse. If, for some reason probably involving brain enemas and a bad concussion, I wanted to write about Mickey Mouse - I'd have a near endless list of sources to turn to and questions to address. However, I just had to go and pick Wakko from Animaniacs. This was a horrible choice. I love Wakko. He's insane, cute, wacky, funny and someone I can relate to somewhat. But he was invented too recently.
One is hard-pressed to find academic writings of characters who were invented after the Golden Age of Animation. Animaniacs was a 90's cartoon, and that's what is making this difficult. Even though Animaniacs was more popular with teens and adults in its time, nobody wanted to write about it. There's a few witterings about educational value or animation style - but nothing about the characters. None of them seem to have been as inspirational as Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse.
So where does that leave me? I can't change that, because I need to make references and cite sources rather than writing a block of sheer opinion. At the same time, I can't just give up because I kind of need to earn a grade. Even worse, it seems much too late to start looking into different characters because I just don't have a lot of time where I'm not making characters. Maybe its a time-management issue, or maybe its a motivational issue. Either way, this research project is becoming gruellingly hard. If I were to change to Bugs Bunny, I already have a series of feature-length documentaries I could look at. However, that is also a problem. They're feature-length, and I don't have time to watch five two-hour documentaries interspersed with full-length cartoons. At the same time, it would feel weird for me to talk about a character whose popularity seems to stem from his efforts during the war-time era of which I was not a part. A modern-generation kid talking about The War doesn't seem right. I can only talk about what other people have said and bring nothing of myself to that. So what would be the point in writing it?
I don't know, maybe I just need to look at this differently?
I'd really appriciate the in-put of my peers and followers on this matter. Anyone who comments gets a free cookie.

Tsukumogami

By weird coincidence, I just stumbled upon a Japanese myth/legend/folklore about demons called "Tsukumogami." It is said that when inanimate objects reach their 100th birthday, they are granted life and become aware, sentient beings. According to an article on Wikipedia (where the source is, unfortunately, not cited): "Tsukumogami vary radically in appearance, depending on the type of item they originated from as well as the condition that item was in. Some, such as tsukumogami originating from paper lanterns or broken sandals, can have tears which become eyes and sharp teeth, thus giving a horrifying visage. Others, such as worn prayer beads or teacups, may merely manifest faces and appendages, giving a warm and friendly appearance." So it sounds like they anthropomorphisize upon reaching their 100th birthday. I find that pretty cool! Its a concept I'd love to work with at some point. 

Proud Member of Nōnamé

In our Research group, there was a team of us who wanted to focus on 2D animation and two people who wanted to focus on anime, thus the two groups were fused and then split into Disney and Non-Disney as a way of making numbers even. Myself, Asch, Matt, Jordan and Peter became the Non-Disney group and named ourselves "Nōnamé" for lack of a better name. See Jordan's blog for the anecdote. What anecdote? Why, the anecdote for the poison you just drank. Muwahahaha! So we'll be focusing on a broad range of traditionally animated anthropormorphic characters for our group presentation. We're not sure what our actual subject should be, though. We've thought up a handful of questions to address, though.

• Is the response of the viewer affected by whether the character is organic or mechanical?
• How does an anthropomorphic character interact within a human society?
• Does the emotional depth of the character affect our connection to it?
• Does the morality of the character affect our relationship to it? (In both the morals of the characters, and the morality involved in its existence as a manufactured creature or animal in a human-based society, etc.)
• How are anthropomorphic characters viewed by different age groups? (For example, how would a child see Minerva Mink compared to an adult's view of her?)
• How is anthropomorphism handled in different cultures? (For example, how would a Japanese audience expect an anthropomorphic cat to look?)

Reversal of the Heart

Such a beautiful animation. I've never seen Flash used in such a wonderful way.
The story is beautiful, the style, the way it draws emotions from you... So beautiful.
I love the way its able to draw emotions from the viewer using anthropomorphism in both the normal dragons, and the post-transformation dragons.
Perfect. So perfect.

More Animation Principles

2D Animation





I also decided to play around with that walk-cycle. I had the old 'Scooby-Doo Where Are You' titlecard music stuck in my head the whole time I was working on it because that show if famous for its overuse of walk-cycles and looping backgrounds. Enjoy.



3D Animation

Line Tests of Testy Lineness

Some linetests of ball-bounce and ease-in-out projects and a progression display of a walk-cycle I've been working on.

Anthropomorphism - The Warners

"Dateline: Hollywood, 1930, the Warner Bros. Studio, home to the biggest stars in Tinsel Town. Here at the studio's new animation department, the artists toil endlessly to come up with cartoon stars, ultimately creating three new characters -- the Warner Brothers and their sister Dot. The trio ran amok throughout the studio, creating utter chaos. Finally, they were captured. The Warners' films, which made absolutely no sense, were locked away in the studio vault, never to be released. As for the Warners themselves, who made even less sense, they were locked away in the studio water-tower, also never to be released. Publicly, the studio has disavowed any knowledge of the Warners' existence, to this very day..." - Newsreel of the Stars, Animaniacs Episode 1

The Warners (Yacko, Wakko and their sister Dot) are three rubberhose-style characters designed to look like the cartoons of the 30's (black bodies with white faces was a pretty typical look for the earliest cartoons). The exact species to which they belong is unidentified, though characters within the Animaniacs show often refer to them as "puppy children" despite the Warner's insistence that they are not, in fact, puppies. Within the continuity of 'Animaniacs' (or what little continuity there is), it is heavily suggested that the Warners were created before their time. They use very wacky, off-the-wall humour that would have been out of place in cartoons of the 30's. Saying that, they are also out of place in the 90's as they still retain their rubberhose style. Their bodies are rubbery, stretchy and very malleable - much like the cartoons of the Golden Age. They move with a lot of squash, stretch and bounce and have musical talent which fit perfectly with the era they were supposedly created for. So it is clear that the Warner children are not human beings, or any other animal we know exists. So how do we know they are children? How do they make us relate to them if they're not even animals, let alone human beings?

Without other characters calling them "children" or "kids", it's clear that the Warners are young children, despite them not looking very human. They have a youthful energy (an excessive amount of it, in fact) and generally behave like human children. They have been known to cry loudly to get adults to do what they want, mock authority figures by pulling silly faces or making childish comments and have frequently displayed a naive attitude to historical or political figures whilst having knowledge of current celebrities. To me, this suggests that they are tweens or young teenagers. Yacko, being taller than Wakko or Dot, seems to be the oldest and his understanding of innuendo implies to me that he is a young teenager.

The three Warners are all stretchy, insane and hyperactive. However, they each have their specialities. Dot leads in being cute, Yakko has puns and innuendo and Wakko is the king of slapstick and visual humour. Like human beings, they are not restricted to their specialities, but they're still better at certain things than the others. This makes them more real and more relatable. Wakko's speciality in visual humour seems to give him a wider range of gags to employ on-screen, however. He is often seen pulling faces in the background and eating parts of the set or scenery while Yakko and Dot do their thing. In this sense, the three seem a lot more like actors than most cartoon characters, as it seems Wakko is performing unscripted actions as a child-actor often would. I believe this is also a hint that Wakko is the middle-child (making Dot the youngest and Yakko the oldest). He seems to be more wacky and less mature than his already very immature siblings, as if trying to get more attention from the audience. He has also been seen entertaining his sister while Yakko deals with a plot-centric character, something I would think an older brother would do for his youngest sibling. In the same way, Wakko seems to hold a certain level of respect for Yakko. When Wakko wanted to try out a new gag, he asked Yakko for his opinion before anyone else. This further enforces Yakko's role as the older brother, as well as the way Yakko is often seen looking after his siblings and acting as a leader to the trio. With these close relationships, it is very easy to relate to the Warners as human beings. Even their subtle mannerisms, like the way their expressions are always different, make it easy to see past their tails, puppy ears and red noses and see within them a human family unit of three siblings.

More Sketchbook Drawings

Drawing at the trainstation was fun.

Thought I'd just dump out my sketchbook here.

These are drawings done specifically for Drawing class at university:

These images were drawn as practice for perspective.

This was a fun project - combining two different examples of architecture. I picked a factory and a cathedral. Read into that what you will.

There's also some motion studies for Animation Principles.

And these images are just some random doodles I've done in my sketchbook. I thought I might as well share them since they ended up taking up entire pages (whoops).

So... Yeah. That happened.
Up next - Research into anthropomorphism. Hurrah!