www.aec.at  
 
 
 
 
Bob Sabiston in der Jury für Computeranimation / Visual Effects Jury

You are not only a film maker, you also develop your own software – the "Rotoscoping Software", through which a digital video can be changed picture for picture, thus wholly becoming animation. So your films get a very special look. What are the unique features of your software? How do you see the relationship between creativity and technique - you are on both sides ...

Bob Sabiston: Well, I think the key to utilizing creativity in conjunction with software is to keep the software as simple as possible. Most software is a technical nightmare--it takes not only extensive training and experience to become good at it, but it takes a certain kind of person. Usually the type of person who excels at using computer software is not the most aesthetically creative person. It is a left-brain/right-brain issue. My software has always used technology to a minimal advantage—that is, the artist is still going to have to do a LOT of work, lots of hand drawing, lots of manual labor. That is usually the kind of thing that software makers try to eliminate. But that is where the human element becomes evident, and if you eliminate it then all you see is a photoshop filter or something that is the same every time. Thus, my software isn't the kind of thing to impress technical computer-graphics people, but it is the kind of thing that anyone at all can use. That leaves the job of impressing the audience to the filmmaker's and animators' creative skills.

It seems that your animated films are not only nice fairy tales, but convey a deeper, more philosophical message: "Snack and Drink" is an animated documentary starring an autistic teenager, "Waking Life" explores the question: "Are we sleep walking through our waking state or wake-walking through our dreams?" Are animated films an adequate medium for this kind of message? Or may they even be the better medium for conveying certain messages?

Bob Sabiston: "Snack and Drink" and "Waking Life" were particularly suited to animation, I feel. But in different ways. "Snack and Drink" put a colorful, fanciful positive spin on the situation with Ryan. It didn't particularly get at the realities and problems that he and his family face, and so the crayon-colored cartoon works well. It's very unreal, yet anchored by the documentary nature of the content. It was an idealization of that reality.

"Waking Life" for me was taking someone's (Richard Linklater's) mental, philosophical work of art and mirroring that visually. I think that Rick likes to collect and think about all these various aspects of reality and life—he uses them to make films. For me, as an animator, there is nothing better than to create a moving portrait of an interesting person. What they are saying is less important than the way they say it and how it reveals the personality. So, "Waking Life" was this great palette of personalities that we were able to treat seriously because they themselves were saying something serious. And by serious I don't mean anything necessarily heavy or dramatic, but something thoughtful in the realm of the intellectual. In the end, the combination made the film work in a way that it would not have otherwise.

I don't know that animation is often a good medium for this type of work. I like these films partially because they break the mold of what animated films should be. I do wish that animation was more accepted as an adult art the way that painting is. It's just that up until recently the techniques and tools did not make that possible. Something has to be kind of easy in order for many people to experiment with it and use it in the widest possible variety of ways.

Which are the big trends in animated film industry during the next few years?

Bob Sabiston: Looks bad to me. Mostly here in America we see Hollywood shelling out 80 million dollars a pop to pander to children. This is not animation as art. There is truly awe-inspiring work in these films, technical virtuosity, and it is so ironic that all that effort is essentially wasted. Eight year olds, I believe, respond to an entirely different level of entertainment than the spit-and-polish wizardry you see in all these 3D feature films from the past few years.

It's sad to see Disney's feature animation unit getting slammed here in America, in favor of the all-3D films. "Treasure Planet" was a commercial failure here, but it had some of the most gorgeous animation I've ever seen. The management of that company seems to be continually shooting itself in the foot.

At the same time, more people are doing it, and more techniques are becoming available, things are getting easier maybe. I think that in the midst of the dreck there will be a few great modern animated films. When you ask about the big trends, I guess I think "who cares" because the great films will be the ones that buck the trends.

You are very familiar with Prix Ars Electronica - from an artist's position. Now you are on the other side. What are the criteria must apply to a film so that you could consider to award it a Golden Nica?

Bob Sabiston: I don't usually like it when I see a commercial reel or a segment of a feature film win the Golden Nica. If the feature film truly represents a breakthrough in the world of computer animation, then so be it. But in general I think that innovation in the independent world should be rewarded.

Also, it is nice to think of the prize being awarded to a "work of art", a thing that exists for its own sake, something that its creator strived to realize. That type of thing happens more often from individuals, and with shorter works.

When I won the prize in 1994 it enabled me to live independently and develop my art for a time—it was invaluable to my career evolution and a great vote of confidence in my abilities from an outside source. I can't see that the prize would have as great an effect if it's given to a company that can give 40 million dollars to the creation of its film. Hopefully there will be some shining examples of innovation in the field from more independent sources this year.



© Ars Electronica Linz GmbH, info@aec.at