Dear Pixar,

I have decided to level the field and give my final words on any matter or judgments I have toward you. Here is my ultimatum on the subject of animation and where you, Pixar Studios and Dreamworks and many others, stand in the world of animation.

Webster's Dictionary defines animation as "the act of manipulating an inanimate object and using optical illusions to make it animate." Wikipedia (though a more modern source has it's reputation) defines animation as "the effect of an optical illusion of motion due to the phenomenon of persistence of vision." Both of these definitions state that the overall act of animation is to make something appear alive and full of motion when in actuality it is our brains (our ability to simultaneously perceive movement and fill in blank spots between the motions) that create the illusion.

While it is clear these days that the art of hand-drawn and classical animation is a dying one, I've committed myself to many organizations that still practice classic techniques and learn from old masters to create new ones in the field of classical animation. Cartoon Brew, a website devoted to archiving and publishing animation news, receives entries from over 17,000 cartoonists and animators, professionals and new-comers alike, and has at least twice as many followers. The Hollywood Animation Archive (or ASIFA) is a separate society in itself and holds over 300 "lost" cartoons from Hollywood's golden age, and interestingly enough, has the same number of volunteers ranging from professional animators who worked with Walt Disney and Chuck Jones. The number of fans and followers is unknown but the archive itself is a plethora of classic animation and accessed easily by anyone. These organizations not only hold a wide array of animated films but also submit links to literally thousands of other blogs, websites, and artists who devote their lives to the classic world of cartoons.

In addition to these communities, animation gods, such as John K, also have devoted blogs to the world of classic animation and update them regularly with articles, news, publications, personal work, and animators they see as a new generation of cartoonists.

When coming upon this information it is easy to realize that, no, the world of classical animation is not coming to an end, rather it is shaping itself to a cult. When Disney first announced it was going to be producing it's first 2D animated feature-length film (The Princess and the Frog, 2009) in over five years the animators came running. Pixar, itself, had over 5,000 entries from inside to go and work with the Walt Disney Animation Studio on this project. Animators were jumping at the opportunity to go do some hand-drawn animation.

This past Academy Awards presented Toy Story 3 not only for the Best Animated Feature award but for the Best Film award as well, which is the first time since they created the separate award for animation after The Beauty and the Beast held the nomination in 1991. Critics among the likes of Roger Ebert agree that Beauty and the Beast is Disney's greatest animated feature and it "reaches back to an older and healthier Hollywood tradition in which the best writers, musicians and filmmakers are gathered for a project on the assumption that a family audience deserves great entertainment" as well. This film achieved this, not because of the technical and digital prowess (although the film featured one of the first CGI crossovers that Pixar developed), but because it was a group effort among some of the most talented people in the world.

This is, among many other things, what Pixar lacks. But I am not writing this to pick apart what I feel is wrong with Pixar, I am here to make it as clear as possible that what Pixar does is NOT ANIMATION. To put it in any category among a film like L'illusionniste is a degradation of the art of animation. And, I believe, sequels, especially in the world of animation where everything is possible, is the laziest thing you could ever do. But in all seriousness the Oscars are a joke anyway, and award ceremonies are not what the film industry should be about.

So let's take a step back and look at what Pixar does with it's team of artists. There are artists working for Pixar that, at any opportunity, will become extremely excited over hand-drawn animation. The talent tree at Pixar ranges from illustrators to writers but the original ideas are nowhere to be seen. People like John Lasseter, whom I have grudges toward not only because he heads Pixar but for his capitalization on studios like Studio Ghibli (he has one, count it, ONE photo of him and the great Hayao Miyazaki which, in the Disney distributed versions of his films, he uses ad nauseam to promote some fact that he and Miyazaki are 'buddies') and his overall lack of originality. He also has never stated any animators, living or dead, that he considers idolic or inspiring to himself.

I conclude this rant to state that, no matter what your preference toward animated movies are, no matter how much you like the cute characters in A Bugs Life or Cars 2, you can not discard the fact that what Pixar does is not animation. There are no empty spaces between drawings for the optical illusion to take place, there is no 'brain-to-hand-to-page' technique that allows the animators to be characters, and there is no individuality with every frame that goes into a film.

Thank you for your time (if you actually read all of this). Now, when asked what I think about you, Pixar, by anyone at anytime, I can just point them in the direction of this post.

-Joseph