Wells Reading Response blblbobobolboboblobbol!

I agree with a lot of Wells said. The viewers grew up and have been trained at a very early age to be used to narrative linear films and the animation that followed was a drawn version of those films. I don't think experimental animations got as popular because it's harder to comprehend and appreciate because our brains have been interpreting experience and time as linear. It's going against years of conditioning thinking and interpreting everything as having a beginning middle and end when really a linear timeline of existence is impossible. The linear story is just close to our day to day experience so the first filmmakers I believe were clinging to what they know best. Experimental animations can be interesting, but they don't hold my attention for very long. I get frustrated or bored that I can't understand a story that is completely non-linear. I wouldn't be entertained or interested to flip through a book of abstract paintings for 2 hours straight. I feel that alot of the experimental animation filmmaker's intentions are never clearly shown in their work, and then the piece doesn't interest me. If it's so vague what their intention is then that piece is made just for them and not for the audience. And Wells said something similar that the relationship is between the artist and modes of expression rather than what is expressed. That’s cool for the artist but it sucks for the audience. So it just depends on what kind of animation you want to make, one for your audience or one for yourself. Or a little bit of both. The more you make it for yourself the less reaction you’ll get from the audience. If a filmmaker has made a film for himself with vague messages and the intention routed deep in his subconscious and you as the audience member likes to decipher it and come up with a meaning that is probably not close to the filmmakers intention but just reflects all the experiences in your mind then that’s how I think alot of experimental films work.