PART ONE
Throughout the process of replicating Oskar Fischinger’s piece, Study No. 7, I’ve noticed several key aspects of his process that I’d like to investigate further. The abstract and gestural nature of his work helps to illustrate motion, not only when animated but also in the majority of the one hundred and sixty-five still frames that I copied. Sometimes this is done through form, for example, a curve that is repeated in each shape, or through “tails” (an indication of where a shape had just moved from in the sequence).
Secondly, despite the very few marks made per frame, Fischinger has used composition and shape to illustrate depth and dimension. This is visible when a shape flips or recedes back in space. Considering this level of dimension will be a key consideration as I develop my own work. Lastly, and perhaps most pertinent, is the relationship between the animation and the sound. Fischinger explored sound in a comprehensive and sensitive way that informed the shape and movement of each animation.
Taking all of these findings into account, I’d like to further investigate my own approach to this process by designing one to three animations, based off of sonic compositions of my own design. As this process is extensive and time-consuming, I’m hesitant to set a fixed requirement for these outcomes, especially as they will require a great deal of experimentation. I’d like to consider implementing some of the other methods of animating that Fischinger used, like glass painting, animated sets and layered wax.
PART TWO
Reflective notes
I very much enjoyed the process of applying my studio work to my writing. I’d like to explore this approach further as I develop my practice. If I had more time to experiement with additional iterations, I’d would have liked to consider how integrating moving image and sound with text changes engagement and meaning.
FULL TEXT: PART TWO
In Adhocism: The Case for Improvisation, Jencks and Silver, argue that an iterative approach to creation drives progress. In respect to my studio work, progress could be defined as the discovery and development of new knowledge that drives innovative methods and expansive investigative paths. In this sense, we can see that iteration, as a practice, is a knowledge-producing act. “This is the most exciting moment visually and conceptually. It corresponds to the moment when previous limits are overcome and a flood of new possibilities enter the world” (Jencks, 2013, p. 38). Here, Jencks and Silver remark on the practice of using the same object, tool, material or method for developing a new approach or perspective, which mirrors my critical finding on iteration as a method of creation.
During the second phase of the brief, I explored new ways of approaching the production of my replication. It became clear that some iterations felt momentous and somewhat kinetic in their synthesis while others felt wholly ineffective. A core tenet of ad hocing is the practice of adaptation, addition and modification when failures present themselves. “We must project forward many possible trends, not just mechanical and natural ones, and then dissect apart their positive and negative consequences, recombining ad hoc those totalities we desire.” (Jencks, 2013, p. 38). It is critical to apply the knowledge attained through ineffective outcomes in order to develop comprehensive and expansive results.
Through the initial process of replicating Fischinger’s piece, Study No. 7, I compiled approximately one hundred and sixty-five pages of charcoal drawings. I kept these drawings in a stack, separated by the printed referential frames that I had traced – copies of Fischinger’s original piece. I carried this stack of papers while I commuted back and forth from university, several times. I noticed that through the turbulence of being carried, my drawings had left residual markings on the page preceding it. I scanned these residual markings and played them in sequence, utilizing the same method of animation that I had for my initial replication. The result was a ghostly whisper of the original piece. I noted that each page of this iteration contained two sets of data: one being Fischinger’s work, the other being the friction of having been moved. By engaging critically with this iteration, repetitiously scanning each page and observing this data, I observed how these residual marks formed new images, effectively communicating memory and transformation. This unintentional transference has become central in my enquiry for this brief.
Jencks and Silver summarize these findings regarding the value of iterative practices concisely, “All creations are initially ad hoc combinations of past subsystems; ‘nothing can be created out of nothing.’” (Jencks, 2013, p. 38) A kind of reconfiguration has taken place. A direct and finite replication became an expansive interpretation, laced with new information. This new process can illustrate how previous actions influence future ones. A critical question has presented itself: how can I explore mark making as an historical narrative using animation as a tool?
Reference
Jencks, C, & Silver, N 2013, Adhocism : The Case for Improvisation, MIT Press, Cambridge. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [3 February 2026].
Leave a Reply