I don't like when people call it 'animations" - it seems so... lay (from lay people)
so unsophisticated, uneducated. But when a friend of mine posted an article on Wikipedia on me and he called my animated short films "animations",
I didnt say nothing. People are free to do what they want to do. They want to wear burkas - go ahead! They want to wear bikini's to business lunch - be my guest! They want to call my work - animations" - it's their embarrassment , not mine...
I hate the term "Animations", it just smacks of the corporate diminishing the art form. Making a scene seem more like a trivial little dalliance than the hard work it is. At least, that's my take on it. Every time a student uses the word I slap them with a ruler. GO Chris!
Oh, it's definitely 'animation'. It's a process, so it's singular. Unless of course, there are a bunch of animated clips on, say, Facebook. In that case, it's not the process you're talking about, it's the end product. Cartoons. Or...Animations.
"Animation" for our purposes generally describes our field of work. It would sound equally stupid to say of a lawyer, "She or he practices the laws," or of a doctor, "He or she practices medicines." In this respect the pluralization of animation makes no sense at all. I suppose there should be a case where the pluralization may make sense, but it admittedly sounds wrong to my ears in all cases. It seems to generally be used to describe animated scenes, but this too feels weird, like you wouldn't say, "Here are a bunch of animations scenes."
I liken it to the current misuse of the term "troops" by the media to describe individual soldiers. A troop, by military definition, is a group of soldiers, not an individual soldier, yet they have begun saying things like "5 troops were killed in a bombing today." An individual soldier would be a trooper, perhaps, but not a troop.
Personally I feel it is important to fight to keep our language from this kind of sloppiness and degradation, but I also think this war of words is a bit like tilting at windmills. All we can do as individuals is continue not using the plural ourselves and pointedly suggest the non-usage separates the real animation folks from the ignorant interlopers.
Animation is a collection noun, just like the words "people", or "food", or "soylent green". When you animate, you create animation. The film "Snow White" was created using animation, not animations.
Where "animations" may apply - and I'm not so sure I believe it - is in reference to different KINDS of animation. Just as "peoples" is used in reference to ehnic or cultural diversity among people, or "foods" is used in reference to a variety of food, "animations" could be used to in reference to different animation mediums. For example. a film could employ different animations, using hand drawn, stop motion, computer generated, and cut out styles.
No, I'm still not buying it.
I have a book by Terry Gilliam called "Animations of Mortality", detailing all the interstitial cut-out bits he did for Monty Python back in the day. I always figured 'animations' was a Brit thing. Like 'colour' or 'defence'.
Now excuse me, it's time to take the pram to the telly, or the lift, or whatever the hell they call it.
I don't know. "Animations" seems to have appeared on my radar at about the time we started becoming idiots from sea to shining sea. Remember the day you resolved to give up hoping the 'Boyz' could go back to being 'Boys' again? That was the day it became okay to choose your own damn spelling method. Be free! Help me boyz, I'm sliding off the edge!
I say "animation". No "s"! That's what my old neighbors and relatives who don't know anything about animation would sometimes say and it would bug me to death!
I think a bigger/better issue would be to distinguish between and to determine when and where to use the term "cartoons" vs. "animated films".
As far as does it matter? Hell, yes! Enough with issues of the economy global conflict. That stuff has been going on for decades and will continue to go on for decades. There's nothing we can do about it. But this...we can do something about this! We need to settle this to-day!
If a painter paints a painting
does an animator animate an animating?
I freakin' can't STAND when people call it "animations." As if individual drawings are moving, rather than the collection of drawings. Neal Gabler's lazy bio on Walt uses this term a lot. It practically renders the book unreadable.
The good thing about the term is you can immediately tell the amateurs from the pros when this term is used incorrectly.
It is "animation." NOT "animations."
I have no opinion on this. I guess that means it doesn't bother me.
I am more bugged when literally anyone involved in our artform is defined as an "animator", be they BG painter, clean up key, rough layout, color modelist, director or whatever. The gaffe is so pervasive however, I don't waste time fuming about it anymore.