Who do we prefer the author of the 'text' to be?
Is the authority of nature/human text (DNA) or the authority of 'god-like' vitalism (ANIMA) being replaced by the authority of computational text (BINARY CODE)?
Who or what is the author of creation? Is it man, God or Tool? This depends on Personal values and is not answerable... But it does become problematic when thinking about notions of 'life' and animation theory.
I question the framing of animation theory in relation to what it is the author of the literary text means by 'life' and 'reality', and have tried to consider their personal frames of reference in regards to their philosophic position, either through the language they use, or through the direct reference to philosophical underpinning of argument. The theorists I have read mposition their thinking mainly from theory and not practice, from the interpretation of a film as perceived by audience and not practitioner but also from a philosophy of thinking situated as mechanism or animistic/vitalism.
As an experimental animation practitioner I can consider these positions as valid and very useful however one can consider 'life' in terms of material process and it's connectivity to life processes. This tends to expand the notion of how 'life' and 'real' can be understood both in what is expressed in practice (my own work) but also In attempting to translate the practitioner intentions as a practitioner, not just a producer (the work of practitioners in the field), and ask questions related to this practice insight. The dominance of theory based research and mechanistic/animistic thinking is, one might say, intimidating but also challenging when writing a practice-based PhD.
It is important to really begin to peg out the boundaries of the project and bring inboard strong authorities when making argument in research, particularly in a field which by it's close association with rapidly expanding areas of technology and science, the boundaries are dynamic and fluid. There is some anxiety in relation to this in the project that will only be aliviated when the research questions and project are stable.
Who or what is the author of creation? Is it man, God or Tool? This depends on Personal values and is not answerable... But it does become problematic when thinking about notions of 'life' and animation theory.
I question the framing of animation theory in relation to what it is the author of the literary text means by 'life' and 'reality', and have tried to consider their personal frames of reference in regards to their philosophic position, either through the language they use, or through the direct reference to philosophical underpinning of argument. The theorists I have read mposition their thinking mainly from theory and not practice, from the interpretation of a film as perceived by audience and not practitioner but also from a philosophy of thinking situated as mechanism or animistic/vitalism.
As an experimental animation practitioner I can consider these positions as valid and very useful however one can consider 'life' in terms of material process and it's connectivity to life processes. This tends to expand the notion of how 'life' and 'real' can be understood both in what is expressed in practice (my own work) but also In attempting to translate the practitioner intentions as a practitioner, not just a producer (the work of practitioners in the field), and ask questions related to this practice insight. The dominance of theory based research and mechanistic/animistic thinking is, one might say, intimidating but also challenging when writing a practice-based PhD.
It is important to really begin to peg out the boundaries of the project and bring inboard strong authorities when making argument in research, particularly in a field which by it's close association with rapidly expanding areas of technology and science, the boundaries are dynamic and fluid. There is some anxiety in relation to this in the project that will only be aliviated when the research questions and project are stable.
