Animation Misconceptions

[Joshdotmp4 2.8k]

If you're a starter or a well-experienced animator, these are a few misconceptions that all animators should be familiar with, which can be useful for either defending your animations or understanding how to become better.

Misconception #1: Animation is Easy and Fast
This one is actually true. However, what is misconceived about this is that GOOD animation is easy. Any old walking cycle, sure, that's easy. Moving a box across the screen, yes, it's easy. In order to create realistic and fluid movements it can take hours upon hours of work if you really put in effort. Good animation is not. It takes time, effort, and commitment to make something you can be proud of and that other people can enjoy. You absolutely cannot create something remarkable in a short time.

Misconception #2: Animation is not an Art Form
This is absolutely and completely false. Just as literature, music, and painting count, so do video games and animation. Both animation AND video games are incredibly effective ways to communicate a story or create a new world with unique characters, which is basically the concept of literature. Any real literary devices can be used in the plot of a video game or an animation, and that's how a story is useful and good for an animator to use.

Misconception #3: There is Such a Thing as a Talented Animator
Though some may beg to differ, I am inclined to the proposition that there is no such thing as a talented animator. Animation is a skill acquired through experience and effort. Some people may start off more easily than others, but when you get down to it, animation is a skill, not a talent. You can't be talented at making sandwiches, and neither can you be at animating. There are tips and tricks to animation, and skilled animators can make good use of these tricks. 

Misconception #4: Animations Made with Better Programs Are Better
This should hit very close to home for you guys. The quality of an animation is based in the animations themselves, not how good the program makes it look. You can make animations in Blender, Cinema4D, or Maya (or similar) and have lazily animated movements, OR you can have an animation in Mine-imator (or similar)  and have incredibly polished movements. Which one is better? The answer is the one with terrific movements. The goodness of an animation is not based on how good the program makes it look, but rather how skilled the animator is at animating.

Hope you learned something. If you disagree with any of these, please don't hesitate to express your opinion.
 

[geotrax2001 399]

while better programs may not make better animations, some of them do have better render capabilities, which make the videos look better...

I know that isn't technically animation, but it is something that I felt needed to be said...

[SmallScreen Animations 180]

Amen to this. I think most people (I for one) use 'skilled' and 'talented' interchangeably, but I get what you mean. Also, you're dead right on #4. What Mineshaft said, a better program doesn't make a better animation, but I think it'll make them look more professional. 

For example Mine-Imator animations looks a lot better and realistic now that David added shaders etc that weren't present in much older versions. 

[Thewinner4me 169]

I love this, and wanna put it on a tshirt

[Thewinner4me 169]

2 hours ago, Keep on Chucking said:

story mode much?

very much