That Zany Pulitzer
Go read Scott Stantis' column on the Pulitzer's decision to allow animated cartoons into consideration. All three Editorial Cartoon finalists had animations in their portfolio this year, seeming to send a message to us ink and paper "dinosaurs."
posted by Matt Bors at
10:46 PM
7 Comments:
Personally, what really bugs me is that Pulitzer doesn't have a separate category for the "print" editorial and the "animated" editorial. That’s like pitting a stage play against a movie for the same award.
Daily Cartoonist blog did a post on this.
http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2007/05/14/stantis-animated-cartoons-shouldnt-be-part-of-pulitzer-consideration/
There's not enough animated cartoons yet to have a whole category. But the really bizarre thing is that Mark Fiore has applied for the Pulitzer multiple times, and was always rejected for being animation-only. So it's kind of messed up that they would give the prize BECAUSE of animation, but not allow someone who specializes in it to qualify.
From my understanding, because Fiore isn't with any newspapers (anymore), he's automatically disqualified. Shame, though.
It should be noted, though, that "animated editorial cartoons" isn't a new thing. During the later years of the "dot com bubble," cartoonists Pat Oliphant and Bruce Hammond (and few others, I believe) did animated editorial cartoons that was available through Ucomics (now gocomics). However, after the "bubble" busted, they abandoned the project and went back to doing print-exclusive cartoons.
it's kind of confusing. how do you judge animation versus comics...They are two different mediums and shouldn't be put together just because they deal with cartoons.
Also, the "zany" thing Stantis talks about. That's not at all how Pulitzers should be judged--"zany" news articles rarely win, I imagine.
You don't have to be a staff member of a paper or be syndicated to apply for a Pulitzer, Charles. Ann Telnaes won and she is not a staff cartoonist anywhere. Mark's cartoons run on big daily newspaper websites. He'd definitely qualify if they allowed animators to submit.
Anyway, animation is zany by definition. And since when are we alties going to gripe about print newspapers being more pure than online comics or animated political cartoons?
I meant animation ISN'T zany by definition.
It's not about one being more pure, but just being two seperate things.
I think there should be a prize for comics, not comics and animations. Maybe there could be a seperate one for animations if it catches on more.
What is the time limit for animations? Could hour long animations qualify? i don't think they thought it through very thoroughly.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home