It's a shame that they had to go to the effort of scanning a book from 2006 which was obviously published originally from digital files.
Who knows how much of the screening was created not by the original artwork, but by the printing method of the original book. They likely would not have been stuck with a descreening dilemma if they had access to the original files, which almost certainly still exist in the publisher's archives.
I just want to say that Animation Obsessive's weekly newsletter is fantastic. I'm but a fringe enthusiast/wannabe, but the effort, detail, and love that the author puts into exploring the edges and history of animation, exemplifies what IMO is one of the most challenging and beautiful art/story forms we've yet invented...
I'd love to see a resurgence in this early-50's art deco style. It would be a nice and mature evolution of our bland, minimalist metro art styles that dominate corporate handouts and web ads.
is it really art deco though? I think it's closer to modernist art: art deco is flat, but very symetric, straight, well-defined, intentional, rigid. Also art deco is very much about bling and excess and grandeur: think great Gatsby party scenes. The style here is more reminescent of Picasso: uneven, in motion, tilted, psychotic even. What we see here is also much more plain, restrained (in terms of grandiosity) and even threadbare: it's Picasso and friends before they're famous drinking cheap wine in their run-down attic studio in Paris.
That having been said, I don't really dig the style presented in the article, but I see the aesthetic value nonetheless. I'm not sure it would be possible to pull off high quality modernism with ubiquitness metro art has. Probably we would get something much, much worse...
Interesting. Will surely download to at least skim.
My initial skim reading of this article indicates the "UPA style" is what the internet fandom informally calls the "CalArts style" (or at least a precursor to it), is this right?
Frustratingly (to me, anyway), the article fails to define what 'UPA' stands for. I looked it up - United Productions of America, apparently. (I guess it was assumed the intended audience knew that.)
Think about the differences between an early Disney feature and something like Hanna Barbera or The Simpsons. The latter two are examples of "limited animation," which is usually a cost saving measure: draw fewer things, take less time, spend less money.
UPA was a pioneer in limited animation, but as an artform. They leaned into their constraints and created something beautiful from them.
There's way more here than I can write in a comment, but if you have an interest in animation, art, business, or working within constraints, you may find it interesting to spend an hour or two learning about UPA. (I haven't read it, but the linked book sounds like a good source.)
My apologies, I misread your comment and thought you were just looking for the meaning behind the style. I agree that the acronym should have been written out somewhere.
Well, technically I guess so. There is no one CalArts style; it's basically any style John Kricfalusi doesn't like, as he popularized the term in the 2000s (decade). The thing you have to remember about John Kricfalusi (other than he's a sex pervert who molested teenagers) is that arrogance in animation is measured in nanokricfalusis. And there is no animation style Kricfalusi likes, apart from his own and the Clampett/Avery style animation that prevailed in the 1940s. Everything later is "CalArts". Of particular note, every Pixar movie is CalArts because Pixar is lousy with CalArts grads, hence all the A113 memes embedded in so many Pixar movies.
"CalArts style" is a meaningless term coined by the most hated man in animation and appropriated by internet trolls to tear down other animators' hard work.
I want to push back on this idea. Back in the heyday of JohnK's blog, "CalArts style" referred to a kind of post-Disney/Don Bluth character design language that typified theatrical animation in the 90s. If you look at the late 90s/early 2000s wave of films, things like Titan A.E., The Iron Giant (which was better than most), Atlantis: The Lost Empire, etc -- a lot of them have a Milt Kahl knockoff look because that's what was the gold standard at CalArts at the time. JohnK's complaint was that young animators were aping superficial Disney-isms and making derivative crap instead of creating original design systems.
Fast forward 20 years, and what people mean when they say "CalArts style" is completely different. They're talking about the geometric, flat graphical character designs of things like Gumball, Steven Universe, Clarence, and Gravity Falls (i.e., the "bean mouth" era). This is all TV animation (theatrical 2D animation is deader than disco), and it's partly driven by the mechanics of modern digital animation production. It's also same-y and safe, but for different reasons.
This is accurate. John K originally criticized 90s Disney animators for copying the Nine Old Men. He introduced the term on his blog and it spread across the internet. The CalArts style is whatever style is popular among each graduating class. And when someone doesn't like it, they try to use the term negatively.
The UPA influence became the popular CalArts style with Genndy Tartakovsky (Dexter's Lab) and Craig McCracken (Powerpuff Girls). And the CalArts style evolved again around the time of Pendleton Ward (Adventure Time) with bean mouths and noodle arms. This is still popular today.
It's really whatever creators' like to draw, is economical for a TV production, and gets a positive reaction out of the audience.
I utterly love the style of Samurai Jack for example, so if that is/was CalArts then I'm in. I can understand the same style aped everywhere can get tiring, but that's true for almost every aesthetic.
Who knows how much of the screening was created not by the original artwork, but by the printing method of the original book. They likely would not have been stuck with a descreening dilemma if they had access to the original files, which almost certainly still exist in the publisher's archives.