Is puppetry a form a animation.

[Archie]

Although we dont draw them out and they are objects we move in real time, we are still giving them some form of life and movement, so is Puppetry a form of animation.

[Konan]

Most definitely yes.

[Wontobe]

Most definitely depends.
If it is live then no but if it is filmed yes. In my opinioin.

[Harvey Human]

In a broad sense, anything that moves is animation. As I type, I am animating my fingers and the keys beneath them.

In a narrow industrial sense, only illusions of movement are animation (like photographs of illustrations that are strung together on a reel). By this definition, puppetry and live-action are not animation, since they are things and people that are actually moving, rather than pretending to move. If a guy moving a puppet is animation, then a guy driving a car is animation.

Some will say, "Well, animation [in the industrial sense] is not just the illusion of movement. It is also the illusion of life, therefore puppetry is animation! Weeee!" which is romantic nonsense. By this definition, wind blowing tree branches is animation.
"Illusion of life" is fine as the broad definition, but it is not an accurate industrial definition.

[dxv]

i'm gonna say no.
animation, in the cartoon definition, is frame by frame manipulation.

puppetry is not that.

[Ant-eater]

tr.v. an·i·mat·ed, an·i·mat·ing, an·i·mates
1. To give life to; fill with life.
2. To impart interest or zest to; enliven: “The party was animated by all kinds of men and women” (René Dubos).
3. To fill with spirit, courage, or resolution; encourage. See Synonyms at encourage.
4. To inspire to action; prompt.
5. To impart motion or activity to.
6. To make, design, or produce (a cartoon, for example) so as to create the illusion of motion.

Traditionally it's not, however I think it is, since it fits the definition. But it is best to avoid calling puppetry animation, since it just causes too much confusion. If someone referred to The Dark Crystal as animation, I would probably correct them. If it was filed under animation in a video store, it wouldn't bother me. If the animation section was then chock full of muppet dvds, it would bother me.

Yes but no but yes but no but.

Incidently, isn't stop-motion a form of puppetry? I have also seen animators describe a rigged cg character as 'a puppet'. If the cg character is manipulated through motion capture in real time, then surely it is closer still to literally being a puppet? Does it then cease to be animation? As you can see there are grey areas.

[Harvey Human]

Originally Posted by Ant-eater

Incidently, isn't stop-motion a form of puppetry? I have also seen animators describe a rigged cg character as 'a puppet'.

A stop-motion or CGI puppet is never actually in motion, as a "muppet" is. Both of them mimic motion.
Lights flickering on a TV or theater screen is not motion. If you believe that it is, then you might as well say that an animated marquee is motion.

The term, puppet, is not exclusively associated with live theater. A puppet is pretty much any figure - felt or digital - that can be controlled by a person; but Archie was obviously talking about real-world puppets.

Originally Posted by Ant-eater

If the cg character is manipulated through motion capture in real time, then surely it is closer still to literally being a puppet?

The rendered representation of the motion capture "puppet" that we see on screen was never actually moving in the real world. It's the same as rotoscoping. The rotoscoped Koko the Clown that we see on screen was never dancing around in the real world.

This should be relatively simple, people: If a physical thing is moving in the real world, it's not animation.
Stop-motion, 2D, and CGI don't move in the real world.

[Kaleidoscope]

Would you say it was more performance art??

[Ant-eater]

Originally Posted by Harvey Human

This should be relatively simple, people: If a physical thing is moving in the real world, it's not animation.
Stop-motion, 2D, and CGI don't move in the real world.

You're making destinctions of your own: I still say it fits the definition of the word in the broadest sense. It's just another way of bringing artificial characters to life. But we all know the difference.

The reason puppetry isn't traditionally lumped in with animation, is because animation traces it's roots back to the origins of cinema. In some books they go further back and start calling greek vases early forms of animation; this is just because for the most part they were more interested in tracing the origins of drawn animation, by far and away the dominent form. But with CG, animation is going all sorts of places it couldn't go before. It is not limited to individual frames like other forms of animation, and there are new forms of 3d projection(like what they did with the Gorillaz on stage). Rendering can be a 'real-time' process, and motion-capture can, which is a distinct difference over rotoscope. Some don't think motion-capture is animation, but rotoscope was always considered at least a form of animation, since it was drawings that move. Motion-capture may be closer to a form of computer puppetry than to rotoscope.

[Ant-eater]

Originally Posted by Harvey Human

A stop-motion or CGI puppet is never actually in motion, as a "muppet" is. Both of them mimic motion.

With 'go-motion', the stop-motion puppet was in motion in every exposure. It was moved by computer-controlled rods. This was the process developed by Phil Tippett on Dragonslayer.

It is also possible to have animatronic puppets that are driven by computer animation. In other words the animation is not just limited to being played out on any kind of screen, it can be played through a real world puppet.