2D VERSUS 3D ANIMATION

As a Placement Head of an Institute of Animation and Art, it is difficult to ignore the whimsical variations and its
crests and troughs of specialization specific industry requirements, at different points in time. Its gradual
meander from varying timelines acts as a guide to where the industry is at present and allows feeble speculations
of where its future is headed. The existence and the rise of Visual Effects in its gargantuan form was a
predictable ascension because of the undeniable need for post-production in a cinema germinated soil, such as
ours, not to mention the beauty of outsourcing, which has Hollywood giants making their next blockbuster at our
doorsteps.
What scratched my head was the studio call for 2D Animation artists, rearing its head from rarity to more often
and then to frequently and more frequently. Despite priding ourselves as an institute who taught the lost and
forgotten art of Classical 2D Animation to its students to ingrain and inculcate aestheticism, I was frazzled by the
minimal or non-existence of the specialization amongst our students.
What de-motivated students from 2D Animation, when every studio aspires to recruit such artists?
This dilemma of mine of 2D versus 3D Animation and which one is more in demand and rewarded inspired me to
write this.
One Animator quoted his mentor once, Animation is not about drawing, boy - it is about the math and the
counting". So he stopped being so precise :).
A lot of skilled people in the field repeated the same quote including Glen Keane (American animator, author and
illustrator, best known for his character animation at Walt Disney Animation Studios for feature films including The
Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Tarzan, and Tangled. Keane received the 1992 Annie Award for
character animation, the 2007 Winsor McCay Award for lifetime contribution to the field of animation and in 2013
was named a Disney Legend), who once said, I know I can draw nice pictures but what I need in animating is
action and movement... Later if I need to, I clean up some of the keys."
Considering the value of 3D, it is true that the medium has tons of advantages. Even for a newbie, 3D tools are
made to help the animator doing his acting in Ones. "Everything in 3D happens in Ones and it is always better in
Ones", said Richard Williams (CanadianBritish animator, best known for serving as animation director on
Disney/Amblin's Who Framed Roger Rabbit?). Each of us in the Animation business are well aware with the
capacity of 3D however, if someone decides to leap directly to 3D, sooner or later, he will find the lack of the
basic understanding of 2D involving movement, acting, character design and most importantly, timing and
spacing.
"Computers are just tools; the best that can happen to an Animator, however computers do not animate, people
do". Only and only 2D can really teach what timing and spacing is and how to work properly with them, according
to the 12 basic principles of Animation.
What is more rewarding? Well, it is kind of an individual opinion and it depends on what kind of person the artist
is, who decides to jump into the cesspool of this madness. It is a fact that 3D took advantage of cinema with its
stunning visual effects; movies with impossibly designed but still "acting" three headed and one legged creatures
and soaring battleships in intra-galactic space battles in Hollywood blockbusters! So 3D hit the jackpot! Even a
person with average 3D technical skills could garner a job in the industry, without the knowledge of 2D, bringing
about the mediocrity in production value and quality. Why is that? 3D is cheaper and faster. People like it. It is

shiny and fancy :) and effects such as those in the Matrix and Avatar cannot be made in 2D. However trying to
imagine Miyazaki's movies in 3D would be sheer devastation!
If one were to measure the rewards to money, work, career and fame... they, like all other things would ultimately
be achieved after a lot of efforts, tenacity and consistent hard work. Of course for some artists, be it 2D or 3D, the
opportunity and ability to bring dreams and imagination to life, through any medium, using shapes, colors and
shades coming directly from the heart and soul of an artist is the biggest and only demanding reward any
animator can ever get!
From another perspective it is said that 2D needs 3D and 3D needs 2D. In ANY film there are many elements of
2D; storyboards, concept art, scenes, set design and several others. 3D is only used to make the shots which
don't exist. The age old debate is fueled by the very question that has been asked, but the answer is not what
one would expect. John Lasseter (PIXAR) answered this very question in Behind the Scenes of PIXAR with,
They cannot exist without each other."
To summarize, I feel that too many of us are looking at this question from a hobbyist point of view. If you want to
make a living as an artist then you need to dive into what you enjoy, knowing that there are positions for both
fields, however if a student aspires for a future in the 3D Animation industry, he would need to base it on his
knowledge and skill of 2D Animation, to take it to a level and quality that supersedes the existing mediocrity of the
industry to a more international one.
Thats when we will know that we have arrived