Animation: Developmental vs. Experimental

Configuration vs. Abstraction
I think when we hear animation or cartoon, our first thoughts are geared towards configuration. We are drawn to it as kids. We don't want to watch abstract movements; instead we like the movements of characters that entertain us. Especially being able to watch animals that can only come alive (humanistically) in our imaginations take to life on the screen. Sure abstraction may be tougher and more aesthetically pleasing, but it is not a mainstream entertainment like the animation of Warner Brothers or Disney.

Specific Continuity vs. Specific Non-continuity
I think this is an interesting difference between the two animation styles. Experimental animation has no reason to contain any kind of continuity except that of non-continuity. It's almost as if we expect experimental animation to be nothing but non-continuous simply because it is the opposite of developmental animation. While I understand the reasoning, I think experimental animation takes thought and choice. That thought and decision making is the continuous element that may not form a story, but still holds meaning. I believe he touches on that.

Narrative vs. Interpretive
Many times I think this is thought of as a key difference between the two forms of animation. Developmental is seen predominantly as a form of entertainment. Experimental is seen more as an art form. I think this also ties in closely to the "Absence of Artist vs. Presence of Artist" point. The artistry is often forgotten when animation presents a narrative. However, many times experimental film calls attention to the presence of the artist. It could be sloppy or carry a particular signature of a filmmaker. Typically these narratives try to cover up that they are in fact manufactured.

Also the article mentions Duck Amuck which was actually one of my favorite cartoons back in the day. I figured I'd post that since it defies many of the conventions of developmental animation.