Why did Cal Arts become a boogyman for the horrible state of TV animation in the west...

Why did Cal Arts become a boogyman for the horrible state of TV animation in the west? Why do people consider them to be he ones at fault for the current homogenized artstyle? Shouldn't Disney be to blame for taking up all the talent in the industry? I think we should blam the lack of passion in general.

Other urls found in this thread:

johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2010/01/cal-arts-style.html
johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2007/02/being-enslaved-to-someone-elses-style.html
youtube.com/watch?v=_NPX6lx08DU&feature=youtu.be&t=679
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

CalArts is just a simple, easy to articulate boogeyman that doesn't need a lot of explaining. To be honest, I wonder why Pen Ward and J.Q Quintell didn't become the boogeymen (they were the first to successfully adopt the writing and art style of modern toons).

>This thread AGAIN

He's not posting the usual bait, he's asking why Calarts is considered responsible.

People suspect there is some nepotism going on.

Simple - a lot of prolific shows lately came from animators who graduated at CalArts, which is already an extremely prestigious school that's seen by many as a golden ticket to stardom should you get in.

Not saying that's right or wrong, just saying I understand the reasoning.

Because the internet always likes to blame the current state of things on a single enemy group instead of examining every bit of the big picture.

>cartoons then
>consistent recognizable style

>cartoons now
>just have characters make stupid goofy faces

It first started because John K. would rail on it and people like parroting opinions

Nice to see a thread about this topic without the usual "CAL ARTS BEAN FACE IS RUINING ALL CURRENT ANIMATION!!!!1" bait

Personally I think it's just easier for Sup Forums to push the blame on Calarts for the faults of the current industry than to actually try and take an in-depth look at the industry as a whole

I don't think it has to do with a lack of passion.

I think it has to do with the lack of inspiration from real life.

>One decade
>One studio
>Two decades
>Multiple studios

you do realize that picture is a response to that other really bad "old cartoons made wacky diverse faces while new ones are just bean face" bait picture right?

Yet it ruins it's point by including TTG where they're all making the same face

He doesn't.

Gumball is made in the UK so what's CalArts got to do with it?

Wow it's like you completely disregarded the OP

At least when cartoonists first using the term "Cal Arts style", it didn't mean everyone who went to Cal Arts. It referred to the 80s-onward generation of animators whose biggest goal was to imitate the old classics they grew up with, as opposed to provide their own take on reality. With animation taking off in popularity, students flocked to Cal Arts because they wanted to Be Like Disney and study under the masters.

It's kind of like using the term "generic fantasy" to refer to the influx of elves and dwarves stories by people who wanted to Be Like Tolkein.

If you have to ask why so-and-so becomes a scapegoat or a boogeyman on 4ch, Christ help me I haven't used this phrase in forever, lurk moar.

Here, any criticism that can shortened down to a single, overused buzzword, will be.
>a few characters have similiar art styles?
Fucking Cal-Arts
>a cartoon is popular and people like it?
Fucking Reddit
>a character in a cartoon who's gay?
Fucking tumblr
>you like DC?
Fucking 3edgy5me/Snyder
>you like Marvel?
Fucking quips
>an opinion that's popular that I don't share?
Fucking, gr8 meme, m800

>this stale meme again

>A good number of those have the characters making the same face

Uh?

So how many minutes do we have before the "why is anime so much better than muh western cartoons" thread pops up?

I've never heard any complaints about Cal Arts outside Sup Forums. It sounds more like a Sup Forums meme boogeyman to me.

>ALL MODERN CARTOONS LOOK THE SAME!!!!
>bring up 4 cartoon characters with round heads
Well, fuck, what's the point of even bothering? Time to close up shop, boys, animation's dead.

Are you baiting? Anime does a lot more than western animation does.

Who are you quoting?

The point of the image is none of them have bean face designs. If I wanted to show expression variety I would have chosen a different image.

The OP. Thats pretty much what that image is trying to say.

That one picture that gets posted in every cal-arts thread with Dipper, Clarence, Gumball and that girl from Star Vs. The Forces of Evil or whatever it's called, can't remember.

Yet there are only about two head types in that image. You tried and failed, you could have at least used a show like Uncle Grandpa instead of a show that reuses character traits between gems.

Op never said that.

>500/ 222/ 487/ 1

People were already turned off to the designs the first time they saw Adventure Time but still gave it a chance anyway. Then slowly more and more shows on separate networks started imitating the same style until it could not be denied any longer.

Then the style started appearing outside of tv. Once cereal boxes were covered in it then it became a genuine dread along the same lines as zombie apocalypse or alien infiltration.

I hope you realize how idiotic it is to make a post like this. I hope you realize how ironic you're being.

I mean we get the same fucking thread every other day, much like this one. And it never goes anywhere.

Gumball, Dipper, and Steven are off model.

except they're not?

Oh for sure.

I do think there is a bit of anger coming from some anons here who applied to Calarts but were denied.

They might have some leftover anger about why they were dismissed and look at things that makes them say "Holy shit I can make that! I can do better than that and this asshole was accepted?!" And they think there is either some kind of conspiracy or they just plain hate everything associated with that school.

>Garnet
>Vidallia
>BPearl
>SC
>BD

So why don't you hide it instead of bumping it?

It's possible, but I would think that's a marginally small portion, if any.

Those people, however, should consider everyone who gets accepted to CalArts and DON'T get jobs.

Though to be fair. The only good TV animated shows that make use of the medium well are coming OUTSIDE of America.

>If any two characters look remotely human in the same way it's SHIT! SHIT!

Except you defeated the point by using a show with characters who were DESIGNED to look alike you retard.

> Pearls
> Garnet
> Rose
> YD
> Amethyst
> Lapis
> Sour Cream
> Lars
> Sapphire
> Greg
> Sardonyx

All have different head shapes. Tf are you talking?

>Pearls
>Different head shapes

But they don't? And you're ignoring that they all have distinctly different hights and body shapes..

its not really CalArts
its more like a studio will usually have their shows look similar so it's easier for them to animate all the shows

I meant in contrast with the other characters niga.

I hear loads of stories about people that go to Calarts and get great jobs in the industry, even mediocre jobs but I don't think I ever hear about this much.

>tfw you must finish what you have begun

>1970-90
>American studios use slave labor in Japan or Korea to draw their cartoons
>All credit goes to American creators
>Life standards raise up in Japan, slave animation is no longer affordable.
>By the end of the 90s life standards raise up in Korea too.
>Ex-Japanese slaves put into practice all of what they learned at the bottom of the ladder to make their own high-quality animation
>Anime successes all over the world
>Meanwhile American studios must rely only on themselves.
>Hand drawn animation becomes to expensive. Americans must invest in computer programs such as Flash or Toonboom.
>2008. Crisis hits. Studios must work with even smaller teams
>To put it even better, internet piracy and counterfeits divide budget by half.
>As icing on the cake: New generation of animators are not taught to animate by hand

As our Lord said, last ones will be first ones. Today yanks can be seen for what they are truly worth

Wages in the anime industry are still very low, and budgets are at least two or three times lower than in America. The Simpsons is over ten times more expensive per episode than anime.

>Ex-Japanese slaves put into practice all of what they learned at the bottom of the ladder to make their own high-quality animation
They had been making anime since 1963 and other animation before that, and by 1990 they had already superceded American animation. Their outsourcing work for American productions is a historical footnote.

>Hand drawn animation becomes to expensive. Americans must invest in computer programs such as Flash or Toonboom.
Hand-drawn animation is still used in American shows like Steven Universe and Adventure Time, and the switch to digital production made hand-drawn animation cheaper than it had been before.

>I think it has to do with the lack of inspiration from real life.
Bingo. Japan is finally moving away from this as it becomes the norm in the west.

>Japan is finally moving away from this
When did they even have that problem?

This makes sense, though. Cereal boxes all look like 90s characters, so it's a normal update.

Convenient ref, bro

They obviously like more "normal" proportions in general, but it was a problem starting around 2006-8. It was more pronounced in movement than still art.
It's not exactly a strictly modern issue, though, just a trend.

I don't remember any problem like that.

It was pretty obvious with hands and feet. I hated when characters weren't wearing shoes, because the ankles were just lines going straight down almost to the heel and made them look like flippers.
You could also argue eyes, since they looked more painted-on, but that's mostly a genre thing.

Imagine
>Finally getting into Calarts
>Parents cannot afford it so you go on student loans
>Borrow over 100K in four years for education
>Finally get foot into the industry and get to work on animation
>Wages are at Japanese level and you never make any more than 28K a year
>You remain in poverty stricken debt for the rest of your life

Yeah, I really don't know what you're talking about here. There's also no reason why the whole industry would collectively start drawing in a specific way for a few years.

What are you getting at?

>I really don't know what you're talking about here.
Unless you're an art critic, that's fine.
>There's also no reason why the whole industry would collectively start drawing in a specific way for a few years.
Except there is. People start taking on similar traits in their work by cultural influence. That's why it's easy to pick out a cartoon from ten years ago compared with one from twenty or thirty years ago. Heck, paintings, music, architecture are split pretty obviously by trends of a CENTURY. It's not like people just get together and decide what they want their art to look like for however long.

I mean I don't know where these problems are supposed to have occured. I've never seen or heard of anything like it.

>People start taking on similar traits in their work by cultural influence.
Within reason. What you are talking about is not within reason.

>I mean I don't know where these problems are supposed to have occured.
It doesn't take that long to see them if you just look.
I'm not suggesting some huge change, so I don't know how it isn't within reason. It's just poor anatomy in the details.

>It doesn't take that long to see them if you just look.
Yeah yeah.

This is just another one of those bizarre random complaints people make about anime for whatever reason.

>This is just another one of those bizarre random complaints people make about anime for whatever reason.
It's not random, and I saw it more in shows I enjoyed because I was more scrutinous. Criticism isn't a complaint. And in case you forgot, I was talking about how it's NOT happening anymore and that I'm happy with things getting a bit better. Where did I sound like I was trying to bash anything?

>It's not random
I'm sure it isn't. In your mind.

It all has to do with history of the animation industry.
Back in the 1920's-30's CAL-ARTS was the Chouinard Art Institute and was the only art school in the area. Lots of prospective artists went there (including Chuck Jones), and around the 20's and 30's Disney sent his animators there to learn how to be better.
The nine old men studied there, and they systematized the "Disney" style(which is actually a combination of multiple artists styles.).
Fast forward a bit to 1960's after the second world war, the strikes, the rise of UPA, Disney becomes big.
Nelbert Chouinard is dying and decides to give his art school over to uncle Walt.
Disney merges another music school into the art school and makes cal-arts.
Cal-arts; now technically an extension of Disney, begins to use and incorporate style guides from Disney's nine old men.
Artists entering cal-arts (assuming they are skilled enough) are drilled in techniques of Disney's past.

The main criticism of the cal-arts style (as I see it) is three fold:
One: The Styles the nine old men had were a combination of their own individual quirks and time-saving techniques.
Two: following the style religiously as stupid people do leads to homogeneous works.
Three: Executives and the "branding" cancer have led studios to imitate Disney so as to get viewership via familiarity of style.
AKA. "What do you mean it's not Disney?"
According to John K.; johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2010/01/cal-arts-style.html
Mainly, (paraphrased)"What was a unique good style of one(or more) artists becomes copied by other artists, without understanding the flaws and limitations of the style".
more...
johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2007/02/being-enslaved-to-someone-elses-style.html

John K. can be a stupid cunt who makes shitty animations, but his criticism here is correct and important to be aware of...

TLDR;
Dumb artists and studios recycle styles degrading it and making shitty ripoffs cluttering the market and makes animation look generic.

I can't post any examples because of the device I'm on, if that's what you mean. I don't know what you think my point is.

>Changing the vogue doesn't depend on changing the art style
>Changing the vogue depends on the inspirations for shows coming from real-life cultures and not other cartoons/anime

Because I'm developing a cartoon right now about my own culture and when I see "ADVENTURE TIME MADE A SAILOR MOON REFERENCE :D" get infinitely more praise than anything inspired by the creator's actual childhood, it gets a little disheartening for the medium.

Well put.

Exactly.

Don't be disheartened.
If what you are making is good; has a solid story/aesthetic, and is marketed/shared you will be noticed.

I thought the original 9 old men Disney style largely died out around 2000 or so.

The old Disney afternoon kept that design going with things like Ducktales, Goof Troop, Chip n Dale etc. But around 2000-2002 they actually started branching out with different designs with things like Kim Possible, Jake Long, Weekenders, Recess.

But if I were to point at someone for overusing a style for all shows right now I would look at Cartoon Network.

It's pop culture reference, it is bound to get attention no matter what.

Dude, do you even have an argument? All I've been seeing from your shitty comments were "nuh uh, it didn't happen." Faggot, have you been under a stone all your life or are you a animufaggot or something? Every day since the dawn of Pokemon, people have been over crazed by Japanese animation and has carried a whole bunch of influences, right down to the shitty samefacing animu has been doing since forever. This has been the case with Teen Titans, Avatar, Ben 10, etc and many people do the same shit in fanart. You haven't proven any piece of shit stance to say this didn't happen, and are just being a fuckboi defending faggot about something that HAS been the case for fucking years.

tl;dr: Faggot prove yourself that your right when you're fucking wrong in every way from all your faggot posts you have made thus far.

I don't have to prove shit since I'm not the one making a claim. Either provide concrete evidence of this supposed problem or go away.

Certainly for Disney, but again habits die hard.

As for CN I agree to a point, but I think style is only a fraction of what makes something popular.

Nothing beats solid story. period.

[Spoiler]That is what everyone talking about animation is missing. Who gives a fuck how colorful or "well animated" something is, if it says/does nothing interesting?[/Spoiler]

>Who gives a fuck how colorful or "well animated" something is if it says nothing?
Animation and filmmaking are also artforms, not merely vehicles for delivering a narrative.

I agree; "looking good" is an extension of conveying meaning. It's one way to inject emotion. In that way, it's separate from the story, but often helps the story in what it says.

Well CalArts is located RIGHT by where most of the big studios are

Ironically at the time John K was bashing calarts the poster child of the "calarts style" that he was railing against was the Iron Giant

Give them cherry trees a break, will ya?

I am not devaluing the merit of animation done for animation's sake.

The problem is animators expect that art alone sells everything, the reality is most people are not seekers of art solo and are not aware of the effort of the techniques shown.
As Chuck Jones once said,
youtube.com/watch?v=_NPX6lx08DU&feature=youtu.be&t=679
watch till 12:20
Understand that my opinion is not because i don't see value in beautiful animation; it's that to become really good (as in universal undeniable acclaim) it has to meld both beautiful animation and a succinct story perfectly; or more realistically well enough for the expectations of the audience.
Forgive my terseness.

And in a field where it really is all about who you know too.

I would just be happy if they quit with the noodle arms.

I never thought elbows would become such a rare and amazing thing.

You and me both...

Examples from FIVE DECADES
>Examples from less than one
I'm not disagreeing, but you can do better.
Incidentally, the point of the image was that art now isn't as homogeneous as it has been in the past, with the SPECIFIC examples given being from a time period where art actually WAS very lacking.

I technically didn't do it.

I just fused one of the charts with the other.

Forgive my lack of awareness.
I like seeing comparisons like this when they're accurate, though it's also fun to pick apart the ones that are wrong.