Norman Mclaren – Dots (1940)
Steffen Bygebjerg – End Scene (2009)
When you showed us the clip from Mclaren in class, I immediately thought of this music video animated by Bygebjerg. The similarities are pretty easy to spot. 1, the simplicity of the objects that are animated. Both of them use basic shapes, that morph into other basic shapes. 2, the grain. For Mclaren this was not a choice seeing as this was made in the 40’s when computer techniques were limited, but Bygebjerg deliberately chose to make his animation grainy. The process behind it is pretty cool, labor intensive, but cool. He basically animated it in Afx (clean), printed it out (frame by frame), then scanned it back in and rearranged the frames, no extra effects added. And then 3, the sounds. Even though the newer animation is for a music video, there are still those clicks that run all the way through the song, I don;’t know if he actually was referring to the other video, or if it’s just a coincidence, but it really does work with the fast, jerky movements of the objects.
Gerald Scarfe – Pink floyd (what shall we do now?)(1975)
Masanobu Hiraoka – Land (2014)
Ok so here the similarities are not that apparent, but there is one that has made it’s way through the ages. The morphing of shapes into each other, to create something new. With all of pink floyd’s animations the viewer is put into a surreal world where there are all of these weird things happening, mostly dark, ok always dark. With the second video, the viewer is also transported to a surreal world, but here it is much more peaceful. There is a little hint of sexual shapes in Land, but not nearly as much as in Pink Floyd’s video, that’s basically floral porn. Anyway, cool to see how animation has changed over the years, and how techniques have evolved.