Jump to content


Definition of Motion Graphics


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_dr.andy_*

Guest_dr.andy_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 August 2004 - 11:41 PM

There seems to be a lot of conflicting information about what motion graphics really are. So I was wondering what everyone’s thoughts were on the topic.



Here's mine:
A static two-dimensional shape (logo, symbol, illustration, image or otherwise) for on screen use. The shapes are then key framed/transformed over time using colour, scale, position, rotation and/or opacity. However motion graphic pieces differ from animation, as they are traditionally drawn frame by frame, where each frame changes slightly to give the illusion of motion.

Often other visual effects are applied, or combined with other elements such as video footage.




BTW, I am (in the progress of) writing a thesis on Motion Graphics and would like to ask a few of you (in the industry) to do an interview at a later date. Please let me know if you are interested. I am researching the use of vector shapes in motion graphics.

Thank you in advanced.
Andy.

Great site too!

#2 Guest_SermonOfMockery_*

Guest_SermonOfMockery_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 01:30 AM

graphics that move

#3 Guest_paccollective_*

Guest_paccollective_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 02:11 AM

could we also try to define what art is?

:P

#4 Guest_dr.andy_*

Guest_dr.andy_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 02:13 AM

graphics that move


like a sign blowing in the wind?

or graphics on racing cars?

#5 Guest_fredcamino_*

Guest_fredcamino_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 02:20 AM

touche!

#6 Guest_SermonOfMockery_*

Guest_SermonOfMockery_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 02:33 AM

exactly- or a flag

#7 Guest_govinda_*

Guest_govinda_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 02:48 AM

If anyone should be defining this, it should be us. Okay, us and the more experienced people who come by, laugh at us, and never post.

The motion graphics definition at Wikipedia is wiiiide open.

Someone oughtta take a stab. Maybe not you, Wing, but how about:

Animated graphic design typically created for broadcast display or cinema titles. Differentiated from film and television special effects and compositing by virtue of its grounding in formal print graphics, typography and, more recently, web graphics. Differentiated from cell or 'traditional' animation for film and television by virtue of generally involving abstract shapes and narratives.

#8 Guest_jo_*

Guest_jo_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 03:44 AM

graphics that move


i agree. motion graphics = graphics that move :)

tats the most general definition for mograph and i dun tink there's any way we can specifically define what motion graphics is about.

every now and then someone will come up with a new mograph piece so incredible tat it breaks all boundaries and redefine the art of motion graphics once again.

same for art. new styles are still emerging and basically anything that cannot be defined (eg. Marcel Duchamp's ready-made art) seems to be considered as art nowadays.

#9 Guest_wing_*

Guest_wing_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 04:15 AM

Maybe not you, Wing,


hey now, what's that supposed to mean?

#10 Guest_juicysauce_*

Guest_juicysauce_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 04:21 AM

We kid because we love.

8)

#11 Guest_igorschmigor_*

Guest_igorschmigor_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 06:24 AM

stuff that's in the reels section

#12 Guest_I can't draw_*

Guest_I can't draw_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 07:36 AM

"Animated graphic design typically created for broadcast display or cinema titles. Differentiated from film and television special effects and compositing by virtue of its grounding in formal print graphics, typography and, more recently, web graphics. Differentiated from cell or 'traditional' animation for film and television by virtue of generally involving abstract shapes and narratives."

I think that is a pretty encompassing definition, but I'd like to add to it. I think there is something inherently commercial about motion graphics. It is essentially graphic design that "moves." It is a form of time-based art. It can take any form: film, video, web, holograms, things we haven't even dreamed of yet. But to get deeper into what separates motion graphics from traditional art, or from other computer based art, you need to more closely examine the difference between graphic design and "fine art." People may say that graphic designers use text to convey their message. However, many succesful design campaigns do not use text at all, so I would throw away that part of the definition. I don't even think saying the primary use of abstraction is valid, either, as that puts far too many limits for an appropriate definition. I think it has to do more with intent. Graphic design exists and has always existed as a means to sell products or clearly indicate a message, such as street signs or airplane escape instructions. The message is more important than the medium. (And then you've got people like David Carson who turn that idea on its head!) But, I think you would be quite hard-pressed to come up with a clear dividing line between fine art and graphic design. It certainly presents a blurry boundary when you look at the works of Lautrec, Klimt or Mucha, etc.

Now, I have a feeling I just pissed off a bunch of people because I essentially said that graphic design is not fine art. I know all the newbies just getting out of art school have steam coming out of their ears right now, but I have to say, being around this for quite some time, and having produced real art before, I know the difference. What separates it from fine art for me is the the amount of compromises that go into producing a piece. And by that I mean that the client (or the FCC) often dictates what happens in the piece, rather than the artist. There is no auteur, so to speak. I think the intent (to sell, to comunicate, to inform) is what defines the medium. If those criteria are not met, or if other ones present themselves, the work is most likely not motion graphics, but "fine art" animation."

Just wanted to add a few more things: Motion graphics does not have to be done on a computer. No keyframes need present themselves. As a short definition, I would just say: "Time-based graphic design." and leave it at that.

#13 Guest_paccollective_*

Guest_paccollective_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 01:53 PM

[quote name='...and having produced real art before' date='[/quote']

:lol: :lol: :lol:
i love this! keep going!

#14 Guest_nama rupa_*

Guest_nama rupa_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 02:31 PM

"Animated graphic design typically created for broadcast display or cinema titles. Differentiated from film and television special effects and compositing by virtue of its grounding in formal print graphics, typography and, more recently, web graphics. Differentiated from cell or 'traditional' animation for film and television by virtue of generally involving abstract shapes and narratives."

I think that is a pretty encompassing definition, but I'd like to add to it.  I think there is something inherently commercial about motion graphics.  It is essentially graphic design that "moves."  It is a form of time-based art.  It can take any form: film, video, web, holograms, things we haven't even dreamed of yet.  But to get deeper into what separates motion graphics from traditional art, or from other computer based art, you need to more closely examine the difference between graphic design and "fine art."  People may say that graphic designers use text to convey their message.  However, many succesful design campaigns do not use text at all, so I would throw away that part of the definition.  I don't even think saying the primary use of abstraction is valid, either, as that puts far too many limits for an appropriate definition.  I think it has to do more with intent.  Graphic design exists and has always existed as a means to sell products or clearly indicate a message, such as street signs or airplane escape instructions.  The message is more important than the medium.  (And then you've got people like David Carson who turn that idea on its head!) But, I think you would be quite hard-pressed to come up with a clear dividing line between fine art and graphic design.  It certainly presents a blurry boundary when you look at the works of Lautrec, Klimt or Mucha, etc.

Now, I have a feeling I just pissed off a bunch of people because I essentially said that graphic design is not fine art.  I know all the newbies just getting out of art school have steam coming out of their ears right now, but I have to say, being around this for quite some time, and having produced real art before, I know the difference.  What separates it from fine art for me is the the amount of compromises that go into producing a piece.  And by that I mean that the client (or the FCC) often dictates what happens in the piece, rather than the artist.  There is no auteur, so to speak.  I think the intent (to sell, to comunicate, to inform) is what defines the medium.  If those criteria are not met, or if other ones present themselves, the work is most likely not motion graphics, but "fine art" animation."

Just wanted to add a few more things:  Motion graphics does not have to be done on a computer.  No keyframes need present themselves.  As a short definition, I would just say: "Time-based graphic design." and leave it at that.


Interesting. Another aspect to fine art, which is related to intent, is the process: The theory that fine art is about the creative process not the end product. This make fine art personal, for the artist, not the audience. Intravert vs extravert.

So with that theory in mind, if someone creates a graphic/motion graphics piece for oneself, exploring process, with no intent to display or broadcast, would this be considered fine art? :?

#15 Guest_SermonOfMockery_*

Guest_SermonOfMockery_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 03:42 PM

Posted Image

#16 Guest_wing_*

Guest_wing_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 04:16 PM

http://www.zaxwerks.com

#17 Guest_SermonOfMockery_*

Guest_SermonOfMockery_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 04:19 PM

wing is right

#18 Guest_I can't draw_*

Guest_I can't draw_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 04:28 PM

HA HA HA!

I was going to get all serious again with another response, but you're right, Wing. Ask the glowing finger of Zax. It knows all. :lol:

I'm going to stop responding to posts at 1 in the morning after a 14 hour work day. No good can come of it.

And the "who cares" train just circled 'round the bend....

#19 Guest_govinda_*

Guest_govinda_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 06:58 PM

My apologies to Wing for now and evermore.

#20 Guest_wing_*

Guest_wing_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2004 - 07:16 PM

My apologies to Wing for now and evermore.


next time i'll be punching you in the face with a flaming knife on fire.

just kidding.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users