<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cartoons are about ideas, not tools</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thebloghorn.org/2010/02/01/cartoons-are-about-ideas-not-tools/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thebloghorn.org/2010/02/01/cartoons-are-about-ideas-not-tools/</link>
	<description>The Bloghorn is the digital cartoon blog of the UK Professional Cartoonists' Organisation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:02:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Royston Robertson</title>
		<link>http://thebloghorn.org/2010/02/01/cartoons-are-about-ideas-not-tools/comment-page-1/#comment-2038</link>
		<dc:creator>Royston Robertson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:36:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebloghorn.org/?p=4388#comment-2038</guid>
		<description>Incidentally, I took my daughter to see the film at the weekend. Very enjoyable. There&#039;s plenty of ink and think but, tellingly, there&#039;s definitely some computer-assisted stuff in there too!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Incidentally, I took my daughter to see the film at the weekend. Very enjoyable. There&#8217;s plenty of ink and think but, tellingly, there&#8217;s definitely some computer-assisted stuff in there too!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Royston Robertson</title>
		<link>http://thebloghorn.org/2010/02/01/cartoons-are-about-ideas-not-tools/comment-page-1/#comment-2037</link>
		<dc:creator>Royston Robertson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:35:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebloghorn.org/?p=4388#comment-2037</guid>
		<description>Interesting stuff, Garen. &quot;Drawn by computers&quot; sends a shiver down the spine! Thanks for commenting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting stuff, Garen. &#8220;Drawn by computers&#8221; sends a shiver down the spine! Thanks for commenting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Garen Ewing</title>
		<link>http://thebloghorn.org/2010/02/01/cartoons-are-about-ideas-not-tools/comment-page-1/#comment-2030</link>
		<dc:creator>Garen Ewing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebloghorn.org/?p=4388#comment-2030</guid>
		<description>I think there is a prevalent public perception that computers do the drawing. People are often amazed when I tell them I draw my comic on paper, and don&#039;t use a computer until the colouring stage.

You can see it in quotes like this:

&quot;Yoga Monkey, a character whose role in the magazine is to provide the young readers with colouring opportunities, is created by Paul Noble, best known as a &quot;Young British Artist&quot; – quite something when you consider that most comic characters for children are drawn by computers.&quot;

That&#039;s from The Guardian of  Oct 2003 about children&#039;s magazine, Okido.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/03/okido-new-childrens-comic

There&#039;s also this article - &#039;Computers draw a new chapter in comics&quot;;  if you were to just read the title, it would reinforce the belief, but the article is better, of course.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/dave-gibbons-watchmen-interview</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think there is a prevalent public perception that computers do the drawing. People are often amazed when I tell them I draw my comic on paper, and don&#8217;t use a computer until the colouring stage.</p>
<p>You can see it in quotes like this:</p>
<p>&#8220;Yoga Monkey, a character whose role in the magazine is to provide the young readers with colouring opportunities, is created by Paul Noble, best known as a &#8220;Young British Artist&#8221; – quite something when you consider that most comic characters for children are drawn by computers.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s from The Guardian of  Oct 2003 about children&#8217;s magazine, Okido.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/03/okido-new-childrens-comic" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/03/okido-new-childrens-comic</a></p>
<p>There&#8217;s also this article &#8211; &#8216;Computers draw a new chapter in comics&#8221;;  if you were to just read the title, it would reinforce the belief, but the article is better, of course.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/dave-gibbons-watchmen-interview" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/dave-gibbons-watchmen-interview</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention Cartoons are about ideas, not tools — thebloghorn.org -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://thebloghorn.org/2010/02/01/cartoons-are-about-ideas-not-tools/comment-page-1/#comment-2009</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Cartoons are about ideas, not tools — thebloghorn.org -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:01:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebloghorn.org/?p=4388#comment-2009</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Forbidden Planet Int, Jason Chatfield, MattBuckHackCartoons, MattBuckHackCartoons, UK ProCartoonists and others. UK ProCartoonists said: Cartoons are about ideas, not tools: Traditional animation: Disney’s The Princess and the Frog You may have read a... http://bit.ly/9X6SCJ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Forbidden Planet Int, Jason Chatfield, MattBuckHackCartoons, MattBuckHackCartoons, UK ProCartoonists and others. UK ProCartoonists said: Cartoons are about ideas, not tools: Traditional animation: Disney’s The Princess and the Frog You may have read a&#8230; <a href="http://bit.ly/9X6SCJ" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/9X6SCJ</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uberVU - social comments</title>
		<link>http://thebloghorn.org/2010/02/01/cartoons-are-about-ideas-not-tools/comment-page-1/#comment-1996</link>
		<dc:creator>uberVU - social comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:58:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebloghorn.org/?p=4388#comment-1996</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Social comments and analytics for this post...&lt;/strong&gt;

This post was mentioned on Twitter by bloghorn: Cartoons are about ideas and creativity, not the tools used: http://is.gd/7sUD4...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Social comments and analytics for this post&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This post was mentioned on Twitter by bloghorn: Cartoons are about ideas and creativity, not the tools used: <a href="http://is.gd/7sUD4.." rel="nofollow">http://is.gd/7sUD4..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Huw Aaron</title>
		<link>http://thebloghorn.org/2010/02/01/cartoons-are-about-ideas-not-tools/comment-page-1/#comment-1995</link>
		<dc:creator>Huw Aaron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebloghorn.org/?p=4388#comment-1995</guid>
		<description>I like to refer to my cartoons as Pencil Generated Imagery. Modest like that, I am.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like to refer to my cartoons as Pencil Generated Imagery. Modest like that, I am.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Royston Robertson</title>
		<link>http://thebloghorn.org/2010/02/01/cartoons-are-about-ideas-not-tools/comment-page-1/#comment-1994</link>
		<dc:creator>Royston Robertson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:49:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebloghorn.org/?p=4388#comment-1994</guid>
		<description>Steve, it is semantics in a way, Lasseter himself has used the phrase &quot;return to hand drawn&quot; and obviously he knows the score. But I think that some of general public, casual readers as opposed to cartoonists, may look at the term and think that therefore digital cartoons are not hand drawn in the same way.

And you&#039;re right, the traditional animators on the film pointed out on the recent South Bank Show about Lasseter that their paper drawings are still scanned and animated on computers. I haven&#039;t seen this film, but if you look at a fairly recent 2D film like The Iron Giant you can tell that a lot of the movement of the robot character is similar to CGI, it just has the appearance of &quot;hand drawn&quot;.

Actually, the term CGI, computer-generated imagery, is equally misleading. Surely artist generates it, not the computer?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve, it is semantics in a way, Lasseter himself has used the phrase &#8220;return to hand drawn&#8221; and obviously he knows the score. But I think that some of general public, casual readers as opposed to cartoonists, may look at the term and think that therefore digital cartoons are not hand drawn in the same way.</p>
<p>And you&#8217;re right, the traditional animators on the film pointed out on the recent South Bank Show about Lasseter that their paper drawings are still scanned and animated on computers. I haven&#8217;t seen this film, but if you look at a fairly recent 2D film like The Iron Giant you can tell that a lot of the movement of the robot character is similar to CGI, it just has the appearance of &#8220;hand drawn&#8221;.</p>
<p>Actually, the term CGI, computer-generated imagery, is equally misleading. Surely artist generates it, not the computer?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Bright</title>
		<link>http://thebloghorn.org/2010/02/01/cartoons-are-about-ideas-not-tools/comment-page-1/#comment-1993</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Bright</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:30:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebloghorn.org/?p=4388#comment-1993</guid>
		<description>Bloghorn,  I think you&#039;re arguing semantics here. I assume the &quot;hand-drawn animation&quot; that Disney refers to is the old painstaking process of each individual cell being drawn and painted by hand, as opposed to the cgi that eliminates the vast majority of the human effort which that process entails. It does not, in my opinion, suggest that there is no human involvement at all, and anyone who knows anything about animation (and I don&#039;t profess to know very much) should recognise that the creative process is still an essential requirement to convey any story, as well as the artistic endeavour required to create the characters, motion and scenes. 

The &quot;hand-drawn&quot; elements that had been eliminated had little to do with artistic or creative ability, and much more to do with a steady hand and great patience, working on the hundreds of thousands of &#039;paint and trace&#039; cells required to make up an animated movie. 

What would be interesting to find out is just how much of that human effort has been reinstated in order to produce this latest movie. It would seem like economic madness to turn back the clock fully to the way things were, much as it would be welcome employment for a heck of a lot of people. But I have a sneaky feeling that although this new movie has the appearance of old 2D effort, that the truth of the matter may be less &quot;hand-drawn&quot; than they&#039;d like to make out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bloghorn,  I think you&#8217;re arguing semantics here. I assume the &#8220;hand-drawn animation&#8221; that Disney refers to is the old painstaking process of each individual cell being drawn and painted by hand, as opposed to the cgi that eliminates the vast majority of the human effort which that process entails. It does not, in my opinion, suggest that there is no human involvement at all, and anyone who knows anything about animation (and I don&#8217;t profess to know very much) should recognise that the creative process is still an essential requirement to convey any story, as well as the artistic endeavour required to create the characters, motion and scenes. </p>
<p>The &#8220;hand-drawn&#8221; elements that had been eliminated had little to do with artistic or creative ability, and much more to do with a steady hand and great patience, working on the hundreds of thousands of &#8216;paint and trace&#8217; cells required to make up an animated movie. </p>
<p>What would be interesting to find out is just how much of that human effort has been reinstated in order to produce this latest movie. It would seem like economic madness to turn back the clock fully to the way things were, much as it would be welcome employment for a heck of a lot of people. But I have a sneaky feeling that although this new movie has the appearance of old 2D effort, that the truth of the matter may be less &#8220;hand-drawn&#8221; than they&#8217;d like to make out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bill stott</title>
		<link>http://thebloghorn.org/2010/02/01/cartoons-are-about-ideas-not-tools/comment-page-1/#comment-1992</link>
		<dc:creator>bill stott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:10:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thebloghorn.org/?p=4388#comment-1992</guid>
		<description>Which is what makes &quot;Up!&quot; a better film than &quot;Avatar&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Which is what makes &#8220;Up!&#8221; a better film than &#8220;Avatar&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
