>>93912819Sometimes the best way to understand an art form is to point to bad examples. It definitely won't make you popular though since animation is one of those field where even crap takes a lot of man hours to produce. Everyone would rather it be a "say something nice or don't say anything" situation, which I can understand but at the same time, animation is an art and deserves to be thought about critically. John can comment on what he believes are the flaws in the shows posing and char cater design while complimenting the color styling.
You're right that in the long run, it may have been in Johns career interests to just keep his mouth shut and be a unique artist. It's worked for the likes of Matt Groening or Stephen Hillenberg, who say nothing about what they think of the state of their shows or any other shows unless it's generic compliments.
I don't think John is some martyr falling on his sword for our benefit by offering his opinions but I appreciate him posting and challenging a lot of preconceptions I had about animation. I can still enjoy The Simpsons while recognizing that a lot of the time the characters are standing around with stiff poses, blank expressions and simply lip syncing.
And if nothing else, John has introduced me to a scores of artists past and present I never would have heard of otherwise. People talk about John as if his blog is nothing but slander against other artists but he rarely abuses or attacks artists directly. He's usually critical of the final product but understanding of the artists, opting instead to blame corporate tastemakers and executives for 'genericness'.
He once said something like "I wish I had the talented crew behind Cats Don't Dance and could give them the chance to work on something fun", though I'm sure not everyone on that crew would appreciate that kind of patronising back-handed compliment.
