In the unit on Self in the Intro Philosophy course that I teach, we talk about the difficulties of imagining the cognition of lesser species, because all animals besides humans don't think in words. This is loosely analogous to seeing a Bill Plympton film, devoid of dialogue as all his works are. For the first 20 minutes, I am enthralled, but by a half an hour in, the continually morphing figures and the animated viscera blur into a soupy blend it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain focus on. I spend the last half of the film slipping in and out of consciousness, enjoying what I see and not all that fussed about missing out on the continuity, because what there is tying the various scenes together is almost entirely subjective anyway.
In a way, Plympton's works are immensely impressive, giving one an effect akin to witnessing a 90-minute Salvador Dali painting continually in flux before your eyes. The man undoubtedly has a fertile imagination. Limiting yourself to images only, how do you even plan out a storyline? Does he write out the stories in words and then draw pictures to match the ideas? Or does he just block them out in image-form only? Does he say to himself: "Ok, then the guy morphs into an ant and the ant envisions himself dancing with the lady in the bar, and then the bar turns into a skip being tossed about on the ocean, and then we pan back and we see that the ocean is just inside the man's head"? Or does he just draw it without any explanation and see where it takes him? Perhaps, though, to paraphrase Kierkegaard (or was it Dick Van Patten?), "to define him is to negate him". Just enjoy the visuals - it's a fun ride.
In a way, Plympton's works are immensely impressive, giving one an effect akin to witnessing a 90-minute Salvador Dali painting continually in flux before your eyes. The man undoubtedly has a fertile imagination. Limiting yourself to images only, how do you even plan out a storyline? Does he write out the stories in words and then draw pictures to match the ideas? Or does he just block them out in image-form only? Does he say to himself: "Ok, then the guy morphs into an ant and the ant envisions himself dancing with the lady in the bar, and then the bar turns into a skip being tossed about on the ocean, and then we pan back and we see that the ocean is just inside the man's head"? Or does he just draw it without any explanation and see where it takes him? Perhaps, though, to paraphrase Kierkegaard (or was it Dick Van Patten?), "to define him is to negate him". Just enjoy the visuals - it's a fun ride.