Weekend Forum: To Animate or Not To Animate?
It was the big topic at last week’s ICON6 Illustration conference.
Should Illustrators expand their skill set to include animation in order to remain relevant in today’s market?
Should you put your work into motion?
This idea was first introduced in the opening keynote address, The Future of Publishing, which brought together Wyatt Mitchell (Design Director, WIRED), Kelly Doe (Art Director, The New York Times), Jim Heimann (Executive Editor, Taschen America), Jeremy Clark (Senior Experience Design Manager, Adobe), and Roger Black (Principal, Roger Black Studios) to discuss the ways that publishers are thinking about the future, and how this might apply to Illustrators and other creative professionals.
While the question of animation was a constant theme throughout the keynote, it was more directly championed by Jim Heimann in his presentation: ”What I propose these days is that we change the word of what we call Illustrator and call it the Visual Artist, because I feel that the word Illustrator is really a 20th century term. You have to take your Illustrations and make them move. That’s part of your palette now. The future of publishing is all about how you embrace technology… the future of the Illustrator is in being this multi-faceted person who can do lots of different things and not limiting yourself.”
One one hand, it’s very apparent that animation is going to play an important role in the future of online publishing, and that artists should always be open to adapting to such changes in the marketplace.
The problem is, making your Illustrations move isn’t always the best solution, especially if your specialty lies elsewhere. This concept was apparent in the discussion that followed the address, where some Illustrators protested the idea that they need to learn this new skill set in order to be successful. Not to mention, Illustrators are passionate about telling stories and evoking emotion with an image or a series of “static” images.
A couple of days later, Gary Taxali said it best: “What’s sexier than a single image?”
Author Michael Dooley has collected the responses of many Illustrators who attended ICON6 on the Print blog here.
What do you think?
Should all Illustrators learn to animate their work? Will you?
Please join the discussion by sharing your thoughts in the comments section of this post.
You can find all 4 parts of the video from the opening keynote, as well as an audio recording of the discussion that followed, here.
Stay up-to-date with future Illustration resources via email, Facebook, and Twitter.
Having had a week to reflect on the debate I see it simply as shifting sands. If this is a new outlet for illustration, great. I don’t think it’s going to impact on a great number of people but I guess we’ll have to see. One of the publishers put it well (I don’t have my notes with me, so can’t tell you who said it) “People don’t read books because there’s not enough TV”.
And who could possible disagree with Gary Taxali
Hi Steve,
I think the issue that the audience seemed to have is that it was presented as a Do-or-Die scenario, where all Illustrators must learn to animate their work. Whether or not that was the actual point being made, I felt like that was the way it was received. I think that expanding your skill set is often a good way to adapt, but it’s clearly not for everyone. There will always be a market for “static” images that move on their own terms.
Thomas
That’s a good point Thomas. Either way it certainly added some spice to the conference. Having spent the last half of the eighties working in animation it’s really not something I want to get back into at this stage (unless it’s silly money of course:)
Steve
Hummm … good question!
I had to learn animation, in order to gain new skills. So far it has been great for me. You can always apply your illustrations skills/ artistic background to create animations, motion graphics and short films…
I think animation and illustration always complement each other and go hand by hand!
However not every illustrator has to be an animator, and not every animator must be an artist (but having drawing skills helps when doing animations, story boards, etc…)
I have found that the comic strip could evolve by creating animated gifs. Instead of vertical or horizontal reading, the panels can now change within one frame allowing the artist to expand beyond 3 or 4 panels so that more depth and even “surprise” can take place within the frame. It’s also pretty easy to do- just requires some Photoshop practice.
Seeing what Mark Fiore has done is another example, which is taking the flash approach and going full on animation with illustration. I am sure this will become more common in the future- of course this is way more challenging and requires a lot of time to learn and involves Flash training.
If the publishing industry truly transitions to the use of the “ipad” model of online only then this could be great work for illustrators, providing “animated” images to the articles, spreads and even the covers!
I had just come from a workshop and a forum where both emphasized the power of an illustration to tell a complex story with a single, simple, image. I do both, illustration and animation, so I’m not coming at it from a fear of having to learn a new skill set. In the work I have done, there are times when a static image tells way more than an animation can. And there are times when motion can be essential for viewers to understand a concept. This debate reminds me of when Flash was new and suddenly every website had to have an intro animation. I think the guy from Adobe brought this up at the keynote as well. We should all learn from that mistake and use what’s right for the job. Illustration or animation. And I think animation involves multiple illustrations, and should be billed accordingly. My only fear is that publishers will expect motion for the same price as static. And lastly I’d just like to say that in my opinion, an illustration with motion, is no longer an illustration, it’s an animation.
Speaking as someone who lacks focus and wants to do it all, I whole-heartedly disagree. Some people don’t need to make the kind of images that need to move, because there’s a great amount of movement already in them. A marvel dc type comic artist cannot possibly divert his time and resources to making such complicated images move. Likewise, what’s a matte painter or a concept artist doing animating his own work, he’s already going to be passing it on to someone who has the skills for that job. This may, however, be a boon for cartoonists. I would venture that they’d gain greater exposure by adding movement to their work, not only because their work is a watered down and stylized version of reality, but as such, it may help the audience better realize their vision.
Would calvin and hobbes be better in motion? Bone?
Are Garfield, or Dilbert?
Peanuts is the only comic I can recall that is equally good in motion as it is static.
Conversely, I think the Pink Panther is stronger in motion than as a static comic.
I’m not interested in seeing Mutts/Hi & Lois/Little Nemo/Tintin in motion, it’s a fundamental shift in the medium and it ceases to be what it is. Like transforming a lion into a pinwheel.
Is that just archaic thinking? I really believe this though. Publishers are now excited about including ANIMATION in their publications, publications that exist in a static medium. Why not animate the text? Because that’s called television/movies.
I can see the value from a business perspective of having another skill in one’s toolbox – it makes for more possibilities in a shrinking market and a way to remain viable.
Animation won’t be for everyone, and that’s fine. But for those who can, why not?
We must remain open to positive change.
Hi Dave,
I agree on all your points. It’s definitely not for everyone, but being able to adapt to things that will work for you is always a good thing.
Having learned and worked as an animator, I can say that yes, animation is awesome and it’s a blast to do… the learning curve is frustrating and slow though. It’s hard to make bad animation and it’s incredibly difficult to make good compelling animation.
Being ready to change and adapt is the key. Follow your passions and don’t be afraid to say no if it’s not your cup of tea. At the end of the day, there are only so many hours.
Maybe collaboration is the key.
We shouldn’t underplay the power of the still image though. Like motion comics? It fundamentally changes what it is, and in my opinion it does not necessarily make it better.
It’s kind of funny, because I’m technically an animator first and an illustrator second (I’m still in the process of finishing an animation degree). However, I’m finding that as most 2D animation is now produced overseas due to cheaper workforces, I’m getting more character design and illustration work than anything else, and my career path seems to be heading more of the direction of illustration. I think knowing how to animate has helped me as well, though, because it gives me another skill set that I can advertise to help bring in work.
It’s an interesting discussion, though, I never thought about it going from illustration to animation.
I’ve had recent project in which I worked with a video editor who was becoming proficient in After Affects (a program I have little experience with) and she needed to tell a complicated story about internet tracking. We sat down and worked out a storyboard and then I created all of the separate pieces and handed them over to her to animate. While I did nothing to actually animate this project, what was very satisfying and enlightening was the collaboration involved and seeing some of my images come to light in a different way. I think so many of us illustrators get used to our solitary arts and one great potential for the future is collaboration with other talented folk and the excitement and inspiration that come from that.
Alas that video has not been published yet so I can offer no proof :)
Hi Paul! I’m just finished my first “animation” assignment. It’s kinda similar to what you did. I created all of the art/poses they needed and my client handed the illustrations to an inside animator which put it together. Even though I didn’t take part in the actual animation, it feels good to be part of the process and I can’t wait to see my illustration in motion for the first time. :)
I like to keep an open mind and also think that there is a big potential for some great collaborations. :)
I don’t think that static work will ever be dead to the illustrator, but I feel safe to say that every type of illustrator can GREATLY benefit from knowing a thing or two about animation and putting work into motion. Storyboard artists can fully animate their visions, graphic designers can make dynamic and interactive media, and as mentioned earlier in this forum, even comic book artists can explore the possibilities of motion comics.
So, to answer the question…for now, I’d say “no” but I could definitely be wrong here. Someone with animation skills AND drawing skills can reach out to a wider audience as opposed to someone with ONLY drawing skills. At the same time, I think that someone who focuses mainly on static images can still be successful in life.
With the advent of the iPad, animated illustrations are becoming a very real possibility for visual artists involved in the publishing industry, like myself. I definitely plan on adding some subtly animated illustrations into my portfolio. My only question is the method of animation. Do Art Directors want the animations done in After Effects? Flash? A simple sequence of images?
In terms of the publishing industry, the iPad is an exciting bit of technology that will allow me to be more expressive with visual art.
Here’s the problem: No one is going to know what they want.
Art director: “I want a flash animation.”
Aritst: “Why? My style is more readily animated using (any other animation package)”
AD: “Isn’t everything flash? Oh and I want that really gritty watercolor look. And don’t make it floaty, I want something cool, like Pixar.”
Artist: “Okaayyy….”
Art Directory: “My budget is $1000 and I need it in the morning.”
I always bugs me when clients start dictating software execution (photoshop v painter) or AE v Motion.
And animation has been a viable option for years and years. People don’t do it because it takes SO MUCH TIME. At least good animation does.
Interesting stuff. I choose not to animate. I also chose 14 years ago to not use a computer-but that didn’t really work out.
LOL! I don’t think the world is going to fundamentally change the way it did when computers were introduced. Rich media has been around for half a decade now, and it will only continue to introduce more work for artists.
I have to say that I do see some stuff moving toward being animated, and that is fine. However, my issues lie with the business side.
Will these animations demand a higher commission? Will art directors be willing to pay more or will we still be working with the “fixed budget?” Obviously, making these animations will take more time, and that should affect commission.
Will a demand for animation affect deadlines or will we be expected to produce something with movement (and possibly sound) within the same timeframe as a single image?
These are things to consider. Honestly, I see only a small amount of work heading towards animation due to these restraints listed above. I for one won’t be willing to take extra time to produce movement on a quick turnaround assignment simply because the client wants it to move.
Granted, I’m sure there are instances where movement may actually enhance a concept. If so, then maybe the art director and illustrator should collaborate (gasp!) to make that happen. For example, several illustrators I know provide artwork TO BE animated in animatics, film credits, online applications, etc. These are usually static figures and backgrounds or character body parts to be put together. Someone else does the animation.
I don’t think making images move should be a skill that illustrators need; I think it is a skill that art directors need if they want animation. Asking a conceptual thinker to make moving images is like asking a an architect to build a Winnebago :)
Why would a client even expect that? It is like expecting a graphic designer to be a web designer. Yes, some do both but certainly not all graphic designers know coding, flash, etc. I assume my current and future clients will know my art well enough to respect that I choose not to animate as it is simply not something I see as enhancing my work.
It is up to the individual as to whether they want to offer animation or not. Those wanting extra skills to bring in a bit more cash should learn, but I don’t see art directors ceasing to hire great conceptual artists or truly talented draftsmen and (women) just to have a possibly inferior concept that moves.
Enjoy the Day,
Chris
We might be overlooking something:
The idea is (or should be) KING.
Everything else is in service to that, period.
Historically, trying to anticipate what is going to happen next and being there, ready for it only works out for a few people, and in the short term at that. Pursuing what you love pays off in the long run.
Scott McCloud covers this concept exhaustively in Understanding Comics. Sequential or single panel, illustration is just jazzed up comic art.
I am thinking that some of my work might be fun to animate but I have been playing with this idea for years. But if illustrators are expected to animate their work I think Adobe needs to come up with a stripped down software to mMs this easy. I can not tell if Flash Catalyst will be that tool.
In the end I think most illustrations will not benifit from movement. Most smart illustrations are able to tell the story in 1 image do not require movement. Unfortuantely I think most clients will feel pressure to have illos move and things like the iPad will be cluttered with them like Flash animation flooded the web or 3D has flooded the movie industry. But as time goes on I think animated illos will be only done when it helps tell a story and is not just a gimick.
I think that learning how to animate your work isn’t a bad thing because when is learning something new and useful ever a bad thing?
Some people may not be able to do it, and it won’t work for every image or application.
But illustration schools are teaching motion graphics and After Effects so to stay current I would suggest picking up a new skill.
I don’t think every illustrator will do it. I think that illustrators that are curious to take their images into different creative waters will take on the task. Most illustrators in my opinion, will probably go toward low tech, animated solutions. Ester Pearl Watsons super fun ICON6 animation is an example of that. Only a handful will try to be as good as traditional animators I think. Others will turn in final art work with digital layers open so other hired animators can work on them. Again, my perspective on how I see it.
Its alot like the argument that goes on about wither illustrators should also work as designers and typographers. If there is interest, go for it. If your not interested then don’t worry about it.
It’s been mentioned a handful of times, but I think the big questions isn’t wither we should or shouldn’t because thats a matter of choice of the creative, but how much are we getting paid? I know it will be a sliding scale, between a 3 second animated gif for the NY Times, and a full on interactive piece for Wired magazine. What would the ethical pricing be? It was mentioned at ICON, that they don’t know since this is all new, but this will have to be addressed immediately if illustrators really want to pursue this.
Aha! USAGE! Welcome back old friend…
Has video art replaced paintings in museums?!
Motion and illustration can live together or without each others. If it serves a point or because it is just very cool, why not.
The problem is if the editorial or publishing companies start to think they can get away with an illustrator making the illustration and animation at the same time for a cheap price.
If a client want to pay me to illustrate and pay the right price for animation, why not. Otherwise, static will be the right fit for their budget.
Also if you can’t animate, have someone do it for you, it can be fun.
From my perspective, the bottom line is that as a independent creative the choice is totally up to you whether or not to learn a new skill set, or as Rafael suggests, become more entrepreneurial and sub out that aspect of the work you don’t want to do yourself.
Of course not everything will be animated. I mean just because something CAN be animated, doesn’t mean it should. I believe common sense will ultimately prevail here. However, If an illustrator is interested in working in editorial and publishing and this is what the art buyers are telling you they are looking for, then you charge accordingly.
Many illustrators are coming at this from the view point of ‘more work less pay’. I tend to look at it as an opportunity for higher priced projects, ‘more work, more pay’.
If publishers don’t want to or can’t pay it, then you don’t do it. Look for another outlet or market for your work that will compensate you appropriately for your expertise.
To be perfectly honest, I was actually quite surprised by the womans question, and even more surprised by the audience reaction. As if somehow these publishers owe us a living. We’re not trees, we can move. It’s up to us individually to decide what we will and will not do. There are other outlets for illustration other than editorial and publishing markets. There are companies that work on spec. Others work for hire. Many of us already choose not to produce work for companies under those conditions.
Yes the sands are shifting. Let’s become more entrepreneurial in our approach, learn to embrace change and learn to see ALL of the opportunities available to us not just the obvious ones.
The fact is that we are making all this up as we go along. That includes the publishers and the tech innovators. Some people are excited right now about motion, and rightly so, but until the publications have had more experience working it into their products and have had a chance to step back and really see how it works, what they want from it, none of us can be sure exactly what its place will be.
Musicians still use synthesizers and drum machines but you no longer see the kind of ubiquitous, awful misuse of these instruments that you did when they first became popular and people thought they were the way of the future. I expect we will all have to weather a similar glut of half-baked, ill-considered motion illustrations before the wheat is separated from the chaff and motion finds its role.
That said, I think the bare minimum for all of us is to be conscious of motion’s arrival on the scene (yes I know it’s been around for a good while but until now it didn’t have the technological means to horn in on the territory of editorial illustration) and pay attention. Start to learn how it works at least, and if you’re keen then start to learn how to do it. If you’re not keen then don’t bother, no one needs a crappy animator.
Poor skills don’t get hired, so there’s no point in all of us scrambling to become animators and becoming semi-competent. However, keeping our eyes on this new player, and making friends with real animators, would be wise.
Finally, I agree with the sentiment behind Jim Heimann’s comment about the term Visual Artist. I don’t care much what term we use, but I think it’s important right now to think of yourself as more than what ‘Illustrator’ once meant. Spread your wings a bit, no?
i think everyone should at least try – even non-character work if animated sometimes looks amazing. flash and after effects, not even mentioning stop-motion, are so easy to learn, it would be a crime not to try :) i think a process of animating feeds illustration work too, at least that is what my experience tells me.
and animated gif’s sometimes need 2 or 3 frames. its not that hard, and sometimes you can make very witty stuff from those 2 or 3 frames.
on other hand, i dont think everyone should start animating because thats ‘the new best thing’ because of ipad and etc. – everyone should do their work, and specializing in narrower field instead of doing bits of everything sometimes is a good thing.
Yes, I agree, buisness or not, for me its so interesting to see my creations in motion, and I’m not talking about traditional animation, that its a little difficult and overwhelming, I’m talking about experimental animation or simple moving image, I used to call it “Animated Illustration” its not a full Animation but it is moving, hahaha a little dumb, but, well i think once you try, you cant go back to plain not moving images, it is like another level.
I recommend to try it also, its like when the “digital revolution”, nobody wanted to do digital stuff and they where afraid of learning new stuff, for me that is like getting stuck.
give it a try!
I believe we should embrace change and explore it if we so desire. But I also believe that a lot in life is about cycles. What is in fashion today, will not be tomorrow and nostalgia for the way things used to be done will take center piece again. At that point those who kept doing it the old way will be able to command better pay because there will only be a few left.
There will be a time when there is so much digital and motion out there (because everybody is doing it) that people will become bored with it (I am there myself already) and they will want to see something new. The old way of doing things might then be seen as new.
My personal opinion.
In my work animation or as it should/could be called: motion, is another tool as glue, paper, pencil, brushes, collage. If it helps me convey a story in a more effective way… why not?
And also…makes me look at things from a different perspective which is always good to keep things fresh.
I think it makes sense being multi-tool/multi tasked/multi-knowledge in this new-renaiscance we are living in…
Discover The Upper-class word less: meat recipes, beef burger approach, casual casserole recipes.
from frozen beef burger recipe
low sodium beef burger recipe
sausage beef burger recipe