Why the Calarts style does not work

The art of moving images has been an art form for the last 100 years, no matter how those images are made, drawn or captured. Capturing an image restricts it to reality with whatever illusions which can be used while drawing the image unchains it from the reality. So in moving image (movie for short) terms animations fundamental appeal has been the detachment of realism or more accurately the illusion of something real. That while being a good argument isn’t the complete truth as there are some forms of animation more appreciated than others, more revered than others. At this point it is an established fact that animation is a medium, not a genre, it is a different form of moving image from a different source and produced through different means, not a certain section of subject matter or aesthetics which would be used to define a genre.

With that established, another important but often ignored observation is the fact that the particular animated media which people tend to attach more value and appreciation are the media which tend to still retain some semblance of reality, despite possibly looking exaggerated it feels real. A good example would be the hierarchy of the mainstream animated media from the united states, the “2D” Disney animated films being the top of the list followed by the 3D Disney films, “2D” Dreamworks films, 3D Dreamworks films so on and so forth with the end of the list retaining norm of the north, cool world and other Z tier 3d animated films. This begs the question and possibly debunking the myth, why does better technology not have more appeal than inferior technology which has been the prime myth behind every industry’s efforts to “evolve” and bend their respective markets to their will. The easiest answer is people like what they like, new technological paradigms in entertainment may not be what the people want all the time but this answer can be dug even further. A good explanation from an analytical perspective of the artform indicates that people like “soul” but in this case what can be classified as “soul”? From audience reactions to animated media and associated evaluations, it is a good observation to state that what can be classified as “soul” here is the realism and anti-realism scale, which is very self-explanatory. A good example to explain it would be the Disney live action remakes and flash animations with moving shapes, both are on the opposite ends of the scale and both of them are found to be quite unappealing by audience members on average. So it can be interpreted, objectively, that people do not like a piece of animation of drawn media which is overly realistic or overly unrealistic. Both the live action remakes with backlighting and realistic fur and shapes sing along made in flash do not have mass appeal or purity of quality from an artistic perspective. It’s a very similar argument to the one used to explain the difference in appeal associated with CGI and practical effects but not quite the same. Now, how does this explain the popularity or perceived quality of the 2d animated films of Disney, Dreamworks, Don Bluth and Anime? A quick clarification here would be the differentiation of true 2D and pseudo 2D in the animated entertainment space. True 2D animation media are animated to be completely 2D with everything from characters, environments, natural effects and anything else being animated on a 2D plane to be perceived as 2D, not necessarily 2-dimensional movement but 2 dimensional images and there is no involvement of alternate technologies in the process. Pseudo 2D media are animated such that they have a combination of 2D animation and other mediums of animation like 3D, paper cut outs, live action rotoscoping, stop motion or anything else with the 2D animation still retaining the majority of the media space. The most common form of pseudo 2D media are the media with the characters animated in 2D and environments/environmental effects animated in 3D which includes most of the 90s animated films from Disney and Dreamworks with their revolutionary combination of hand drawn character animation and 3D technologies like Deep Canvas to create environments. On the realism anti realism scale true 2D seems to fall more towards the unrealistic end of the scale while the pseudo 2D seems to fall right at the center with the 2D attributing to the imaginary antirealism and the 3D attributing to the realism, thereby creating a near perfect and very potent combination of a visual experience. Even within both categories, the quality of 2D animation is directly associated with the character and environment design with anatomy and proportions in particular receiving the maximum amount of subconscious attention. The better balance between expressionism and proportions/anatomy, the higher quality the subconscious will attach to said animated figures which also contributes to the revered perception of the aforementioned American animated films and other things like Avatar the Last Airbender, Batman the Animated Series, 90s Anime OVAs and Films etc.

Fig 1.1-1.3:Examples of animated media operating purely on 2 dimensionality with both the environments and characters being 2 dimensional

Fig 2.1-2.3: Examples of the Deep canvas and similar technologies used to combine 2 dimensional characters with 3 dimensional environments

Immersion breaking is a process by which the audience is detached from the audiovisual experience due to the failure of any aspect of said experience. From a visual standpoint, immersion breaking happens when the visuals become inconsistent, unrealistic or downright strange. When it comes to Animation, an audience’s immersion breaks when the animation has poorly/unrealistically designed characters and environments, an incompatible combination of colors, unrealistic movement, an unexpected framerate or sudden transitions between mediums. It is understandable that animation as a medium must be pushed and broken to experiment, but sometimes ignoring the rules do not get you the best results. Animation with an arguably inferior animation style, which can be classified as relatively ugly, can be traced back to the cartoons of the 50s by the UPA which were characteristically known for their relatively poor designs, extremely low framerate and low effort animation. They were succeeded by the controversial animation of the hippie movement, most prominently the animation of Ralph Bakshi which has been very controversial for its depiction of subjects but less controversial for its poor animation quality and terrible use of color which have caused his films to not age well. With the 90s came another wave of low quality animation, from the Simpsons and Family guy to the works of Mike Judge which look like something out of a 5 cent hippie indie comic book from the 70s (a poorer quality version of Robert crumbs work) all of which were not the most appealing with their flat lifeless colors and flat basic character designs which range from average to strange. But with all of those types of poor-quality animation said, they still tried their best to stick to the rules while being experimental and had other good qualities going for them, all of which don’t apply to the next category of terrible animation. Calarts or California Institute of the arts is an institution for studies of the arts. It is also a pejorative term used to refer to the animation style of the 2010s which are characteristically defined by flat circular characters, overly saturated colors, “bean mouth”, over expressive characters and flat poorly designed environments, what can be amounted to a childish ugly artstyle if it can be called that despite having almost no affiliation with the actual institute. The Calarts style can be traced back to 2010 with the duo of adventure time and regular show, its direct possible progenitor being simpsons, family guy and the works of Mike judge. Breaking down why Calarts is ugly comes down to many factors, the primary one being the absolute disregard of visual communication rules. Some basic rules of visual communication in regards to shapes, colors and lights include
>A circle indicating comfort and wholesomeness
>A square indicating firmness and maturity
>A triangle indicating discomfort and evil
>High saturation colors are used to indicate calmness and happiness
>Low saturation colors are used to induce fear and discomfort
>Brighter light indicates a safety, security and comfort while dark light indicates doom, gloom and fear
>Light and color together can be used to give an illusion of depth to environments and characters

Fig 3.1-3.3: Examples of Calarts animated media

The basic tendency of a lot of Calarts shows is to throw these rules and others away completely or use them to such a uselessly minimal extent that their impact on the visuals is close to meaningless. The characters have extremely simplistic round and anatomically unrealistic designs which are capable of only communicating an uncomfortably feeble happy feeling all the time while their facial expressions can never exhibit a complex layered emotion without making it feel childish. The overly saturated high contrast colors also contribute to the uncomfortably happy feel of a lot of these shows no matter what their subject matter is and what they depict which destroys a lot of the meaning of the art form and its capabilities. The lighting choices also face a similar problem but not of the same magnitude with the existence of dark and light being a tremendous accomplishment in and of itself considering the quality of the other two, even if it’s not used properly much less to the best extent. This also has the pleasure of being combined with the hyperactive high framerate of the characters. All these broken visual elements come together to create some really abhorrent and lifeless art, something which feels like it’s a labor of love of a 6-year-old which might’ve been acceptable, laudable even if it was from actual 6-year olds. A lot of the popular defenses of Calarts point out to two key things, the efficiency of the animation industry and the attempts to imitate the works of Studio Ghibli under an American production model. The first defense is understandable because it is an indication of the industry embracing the model of endless growth, wanting to mass produce entertainment and thereby limiting everything to their least acceptable point, but that argument falls flat on its face when you bring up the abject failure of every visual element involved from basic to complex in their attempts to communicate something of quality. The second defense is far stranger and more incomprehensible as being inspired by a different form of art doesn’t give any creator any pedigree to deconstruct it, industrialize it, mass produce it and devalue it to the point that its infinite inferior in comparison to the source.

As a result, Calarts absolutely fails to be worthy of being called good quality animation produced by well-functioning adults. It is a really sad thing to see an industry be reduced to this but there is still hope in every piece of entertainment produced and powered by will and skill, not by greed and laziness. The era of Calarts might last long, longer than most expect but it’s never too late for hope. With other industries pushing their skills to breaking point in their quest for perfection, animation will not die with Calarts but will be reborn from its ashes.