Talk:Early history of animation

Burnt City ibex goblet

Maybe it's usefull to explain here, why I don't think this particular example asks for more text and images on this page, because occasionally someone seems to think it also needs a larger photo, a modern animated interpretation, or more text.

Unfortunately, several newspapers and some books uncritically repeated some claims that this would be the world's very first animation. Some even believe that it actually shows an animation when the disc is spun, as for instance historian Richard Foltz says in Iran in World History p.6 [1] (the fact that he only credits a wikimedia commons illustration suggests that wikipedia was his only source). The idea was apparently first suggested by archeologist Mansur Sajjadi, as published in december 2004 by the questionable source Mehr News Agency[2] (known to use poor sources and to promote state propaganda and anti-west conspiracy theories[3]). No scholarly paper about such findings seems to have yet been published.

How the pictures could have been shown in motion has never been explained. Instead, early reports used a 20 second gif that manipulated the 5 images into a 9-frame animation of the animal hopping two times before it apparently nips at a leaf of a perfectly motionless tree (see for instance Pars Times[4]). More recently, an even more manipulated version was used by Iran Press to promote the future of the Iranian animation industry.[5] It initially demonstrates how spinning (a 3D-animated model of) the goblet actually results in a blur, but with a crossfade it introduces a superimposed, slow-motion morphing image of the ibex moving over the spinning surface.

Modern animation of the retouched 5 images. This derivative work should probably be regarded as "original research" and would thus not be allowed on wikipedia WP:NOR: it is the uploader's personal interpretation of a retouched version of the images, but is usually interpreted as a reliable reconstruction

A more believable version on wikimedia commons is closer to the original artwork, yet it uses simplified contours and a frame ratio that doesn't correspond to the width of the cup. A full view would have revealed many messy details of the painted lines and would show how the trees move around more than the ibex, with additional irregular flashes of other parts of ibexes adding to the confusion. No wonder that there is still no unadulterated widescreen version in photographic quality to be found. Even if the decorator of this goblet would have had some unknown means to show his irregularly spaced pictures as a stroboscopic animation, it's unlikely that the very messy results could have been interpreted as a proper moving image (especially by people who were not accustomed to animated pictures, and would probably tend to turn the pictures in the opposite order –face-forward for the goat– if they would have thought the images could show movement).

Simplified reproduction of the 5 images

Even interpreting the painted ibexes as as a sequence of five consecutive still images is quite dubious. Note for instance that 3 of the 5 pictures show the animal high in the air, of which the middle one is slightly lower than the "previous" one and the "next" one. There are also very remarkable differences between the 5 ibexes, one has a long beard, the next has a very long neck, only 3 of them have tails and the length of the legs differs very much.

Can all the shortcomings and weird changes between the images possibly be explained as relatively primitive first trials of a revolutionary new technique? It looks more like someone very quickly painted repetive figures without much care about differences in shape and positions. There are many other examples of similar pottery decorated with repetive figures, including ibexes. See for instance the example pictured on iranatour.com.[6] Because of the rhythmic abundance of repetitive figures, the decoration on that goblet actually looks quite lively. However, as stated on Pars Times: "Some earthenware found in Burnt City show repetitive images, but none of them implicate any movements." Indeed, none of them!Joortje1 (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Giannalberto Bendazzi wrote that prototypes like this vase are not animation, but rather instead "forerunners." because On this goblet, the images show movement in an intricate way that is an unprecedented discovery.

He is one of the most famous researchers in this field. You cannot question the credibility of this person and his statements

Mitrayasna (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Then, as pointed out to you by several wikipedians several times, your statement should represent what he actually wrote. He says nothing like you claim he does, but rather that examples like this are "useless to our historical discourse". Joortje1 (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Another source:

An early attempt of animation, in the 1970 at Burnt City in Iran has been described a bowl as about five thousand and two hundred years old, with five successive images of the same goat Mitrayasna (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you've found another source, but what's your point? Is this any better than the source written by "one of the most famous researchers in this field"?

What you quoted doesn't seem to add anything worthwhile to what was already mentioned on this page. Yes, it's thought to be circa 5,200 years old. Yes, it contains 5 images that seem to depict the same goat in successive positions (according to common interpretations).

The most interesting aspect of this source is the 1970 claim. Both the writers' and your own use of the English language can be a bit hard to decipher, but Karmakar and Singh cite a 2008 website article that more clearly states that the bowl was supposedly found in the 1970s. Unfortunately that website doesn't provide any sources for their content. If that's not reason enough to doubt whether the article can be cited as a reliable source: it also makes use of the bogus gif from the 2005/2006 Iranian press statements without any remarks about its misleading character. Anyhow, if the goblet was truly found in the 1970s, why did it take circa 30 years for someone to claim that the images were something special? Maybe because it just doesn't really look that much like a sequence?

Do you think it's worthwhile to add dates of archeological discovery and every author's opinion for each of the examples on this page? Or just for this Helmand goblet? Why? Joortje1 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I have cited three sources. Yes, the third source does not have the validity of the previous two sources. But can you check the previous two sources?

Why doesn't he say anything about this sentence? Does the document get better than this?

Giannalberto Bendazzi wrote that prototypes like this vase are not animation, but rather instead "forerunners." because On this goblet, the images show movement in an intricate way that is an unprecedented discovery.

This person is one of the world's greatest scientists in the history of animation. You were the only dissenter from the beginning. And every time you make another claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_history_of_animation&oldid=1155041321

This is one of your edits. with these explanations.

''fixed a misplaced citation, corrected interpunction problems, rewrote poor interpretations, deleted repetetive info''

You had accepted this edit and fixed it in your own words. I had no objection to you either. What exactly happened that made you change your mind and turn to the editorial war? My subsequent edits, which were in line with your request, and I removed two of the three images in this thread. I ask again what exactly happened when you started the editorial war? Mitrayasna (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Although you never seem to answer the questions that you've been asked (and although you may just be trolling), I'll have another go at answering yours.

I checked all your sources. It just looks like you didn't check them, nor the comments that 4 wikipedians have made about your problematic use of them (see Talk: Animation). Or maybe you really don't understand much of it?

Your lack of response to complaints and explanations is probably one of the reasons why I "changed my mind", after I had tried whether a lighter edit seemed acceptable. That sure didn't feel right to me, and I suppose it was as much an attempt to do some damage control on what I regard as a stubborn repetitve stuffing of the page with irrelevant and poor material. You suggest that you accepted this lighter edit as a compromise, but in reality, as was to be expected from your pervious behaviour, you responded by putting back your misconstrued sentence. Apart from the fact that it's nothing like what Bendazzi actually wrote, it has interpunction and linguistic problems: there's a midsentence full stop in "forerunners.", a midsentence capital in "On", and on top of that: it's just hard to decipher the meaning of your sentence.

Does this also answer your question "Why doesn't he say anything in this sentence?"? I had much trouble interpreting that one, so I'm not sure. At least I tried, but I doubt I will keep on trying if you don't seem to take in anything. Joortje1 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Lead section problems

This article's lead section is weird. I think its just strangely worded to me at least. I didn't want to make it short by copypasting those sentences into their correct subtopics but I just don't know how to make each sentence connected.

Especially the sentence "Humans have probably attempted to depict motion long before the development of cinematography" it just bothers me, because it feels like it should be the first sentence (remove probably) of a subtopic, but where do I put it? 2001:FB1:94:B354:4CB9:D464:23A4:AC26 (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)