The Decreasing Quality of New Animations (?)

In an article titled, "Disposable Animation: More Prevalent Than Ever?" by Charles Kenny, Charles expresses his concern for the future of animation. He describes new animations as, "people trying to make a quick buck," and doesn't express much positivism for the modern media form. He compares the modern films that appeal to the population to the classical films created by Disney himself and how Disney paid considerably more attention to the detail and quality of his films and how the cartoonists of today just couldn't give a hoot so long as they're making money.

I could not disagree with this article more. I think that Charles Kenny is letting his personal views on "true animation" get in the way of what's really going on. He claims that animation isn't changing and people aren't innovating, but I think he's sore because it isn't changing in the way that he wants it to. Art is always changing and innovating to appeal to the modern consumer. If the modern consumer is a child of the 2000's rather than a kid from the 1980's, then why does it matter that our cartoons now don't match the cartoons he enjoyed as a kid?

And another thing, while yes, the internet is full of a lot of poor quality animations, but those "poor quality animations" were made by people who are probably learning or just picking up the craft. Their work can't be deemed worthless just because they lack the countless years of training and experience that the great Walt Disney had. Places like YouTube could be compared to a metaphorical refrigerator, the work put on there may not be the best, but the person who made it is probably really proud of that and it serves as an inspiration to further better themselves. We can't discourage the next generation of animators and animations just because they're not so great now. That would create an actual shortage of good animations, because there wouldn't be any to begin with.

"...The woods would be a quiet place if only the best birds sang."

I did not like the article. I thought it was very one sided and needlessly subjective.

I strongly disagree with what the article has to say. Just because it's old or "classical" doesn't mean that it's better.

I feel like a lot of people share this likeminded opinion on animations and animation as an art form. While we may never get another Walt Disney, we don't necessarily need one. He was a unique individual with his own style. Rather than trying to replace him, we should try to be encouraging a new generation to learn how to tell an effective visual story. If a visual story has rudimentary designs, yet conveys masterful writing, why does it matter what the drawing style looks like?