In the world of animation, you can’t get Punk’d, only Barrier’d. For those who aren’t aware of the meaning of this new verb I just made up, to be “Barrier’d” means that animation historian and critic Michael Barrier has reviewed something you’ve done related to the world of animation. And if you’re familiar with Mike’s reviews, you know it’s guaranteed to be interesting and thought-provoking. In this instance, Barrier has reviewed my book CARTOON MODERN. There’s a lot to chew on in his appraisal and at some point, I’ll think of a more appropriate response, but in short, I agree with some of the points he makes and vehemently disagree with other things he says in there. All in all though, I’m incredibly flattered that Mike took the time to write such a thoughtful review of my book. (Thanks Mike!) This discussion about the merits of animation design wouldn’t have even happened a couple decades ago so definite progress is being made in the recognition of Modern animation artists and their body of work, even if we don’t always reach the same conclusions.
3 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://cartoonmodern.blogsome.com/2006/09/18/ive-been-barrierd/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>



It was an interesting review. I’m most of the way through your book for the second time. I think the really hard part for the average reader when it comes to comparing the two is not being able to see most of the animation in question. I’ve seen a few things on youtube (of which “Telltale Heart” was the most amazing) but unless we’re able to see more, we’ll have to just agree that the model sheets and frames are wonderful to see. I will say that I don’t think it was necessary to delve into the personal aspects of the animators and their relationships with each other. The book focuses on the art and does so quite well. Adding gossip and such would have detracted from that, I think. There’s just too few examples of the art in this book to dilute it with unneccessary dialogue, I think.
Comment by T\' — September 19, 2006 @ 8:12 am
I think Barrier’s review demonstrates the (my?) problem with American mainstream animation attitudes. He seems to equate good looking, beautiful design with no heart or story or characters or ultimately merit. To dismiss so much great artistic work as beautiful to look at cars with nothing under the hood is pretty insulting on multiple levels to the artists and those of us who are passionate about animation as an art form, and not just a pacifier for kids. I guess this is a positive review, but the comment he makes about modernist animation being derivative and lacking the intellectual and emotional depth of Picasso and Matisse undercuts any kind of positive things he manages to say about these works and the book. If even animation-literate people still think this way, then we’ve got a long way to go. Even if we are finally getting around to talking about UPA, he’s still trashing it. He also seems to think in the case against Cartoon Modern that it’s significant that there aren’t many features mentioned because there weren’t any ones worth mentioning. Well, I don’t recall there being a great Bugs Bunny feature length film either (well, there’s Space Jam, but I didn’t see it). If you don’t think short films are worth anything then you’re watching the wrong medium. I had the great opportunity to see The Brotherhood of Man at the UPA show in Hollywood and it was inspiring not only as a work of art but it genuinely touched me (I’m Asian American) as a message of brotherly love across racial and ethnic differences. I don’t know if I’ve ever experienced that from an a traditional cartoon ever before.
Comment by sukho — September 26, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
nice informative blog, great inspiration
Comment by andrew — September 27, 2006 @ 4:20 pm