Geez, it took such a long time to draw the table and chair... ;o_o; Read this: Today, I was drawing some stick figures, similar to what I drew for Kat two days ago, and my friend walked up to me and said, "Hey! This is a good animation you're working on!" I looked at my drawing and thought, "What are they talking about? I'm not creating a flipbook." I corrected him politely, "This is not an animation, since it's not creating an illusion of movement." To add on, the Latin root, "anim," means "mind/spirit," which is used to refer that the drawing has "a spirit/movement of its own." That's when we started arguing back and forth. They countered my claim and argued, "Animation is an art, like music, dance, or literature text. So why can't I call this an animation?" I admit, animation is a form of artwork; however, they should also realize not ALL art is an animation. In this case, the art I'm drawing is still and motionless, and by definition, this shouldn't be classified as an animation. It's just like how every rectangle is a parallelogram, but not ALL parallelograms can be classified as rectangles, based on the measurements of the lines and angle rotation. I know what y'guys are thinking: "You knew what they meant, Daro. They meant 'animation art' that's related to the characters you use for your animations. Just take the compliment and stop bickering with them." You're right, but it's like those people who call manga "anime," despite knowing it's supposed to be a book. (Those people drive me INSANE.) If that kind of thing is acceptable, *sarcastic* I think it's a good idea we should call comics "action movies," then. What do you guys think about this situation? Do you side with me or my friend? I'd like to hear about your thoughts and opinions on this matter.
Creator- @Legendaro
