After reading this excerpt, I took some time to critically consider the title, “Seeing the Brick”. After discussion about the history and context of animation and its role in the cinematic uproot, I thought about the almost synonymous nature of animation and Walt Disney. In consideration of the title, I linked the idea of an exposed brick symbolizing development or an un-retouched nature of something. For example the exposed brick of a café, that unrefined yet tasteful aesthetic of something that could have been more, but was left at default.

I also feel that animation is still reduced to an exclusively children’s audience, although its application extends far past that. The overall perception of animation is limited and disparaged by critics and outside forces that deem it an unsuitable medium. I am curious to know how this came to be, the opponents to animation and why it has gained traction and notoriety as a sub-par medium. I wonder if the rise of animation had fallen into another set of hands, if animation could be viewed as a violent or surreal medium for explicit content rather than its innocuous assignment that currently exists. As the text implies the unreal and imaginative flexibility of animation, the uses for animation could quite literally be endless.

Another point that stuck out to me was the conception of incoherent cinema, and its adaptation into Little Nemo, the wildly successful Pixar animated piece. The descriptors attributed to incoherent cinema sound exciting, progressive and liquid, but yet I found myself unable to visualize the actual integration into animation. I wonder how the introduction of disjointed pieces add to the narrative in a clean and consistent manner, and would benefit from seeing examples of such technique.