absence of artist. where'd they go?

Turns out I'm like most audiences and enjoy a good story. Shame on me. Apparently, the animation that I grew up on (Disney, Looney Tunes) has in fact been a hinderance to my own individuality and creativity! Gee, and I thought it was part of my inspired urge to get involved in the movie biz. Nope. Turns out it's just a restrictive, homogenous mass form, an industrialized cesspool of low-brow common-denominator detritus. Mickey Mosue? HAHHHH. Bugs Bunny?? SHHHHH. Who needs that when you've got the seizure-inducing brilliance of Stan Brakhage (did I spell his name right? don't care). Hey, come on. I can spot the work of ol' Stan from a mile away. He's an artist. His presence is all over his films! THAT's original!
Here's the problem: the work should be of more import than the artist. Beethoven referred to himself as a "receptor" of the music, and detached himself from ownership. There was a humility to his artistry. I'm all for creativity and originality. Bring 'em. But let's not make the mistake of thinking that the orthodox form is stifling simply because it is orthodox. The dominant form of animation is dominant because it works... it's what the majority of the people want. But I understand the aversion to mainstream animation. Disney is a huge corporation, they must be evil, right? But what do we say of the consumers who spend billions and billions on Disney fare? Disney produces a product that people want enough to spend their hard earned cash for. Can Brakhage do that? Hmmm.
But let me give this article its due. It is always helpful for me to categorize forms and genres, and the chart which distinguishes Orthodox and Experimental animation is useful. Honestly though, I think I'd rather read more from William Moritz. Anyone who honestly believes that non-objective animation "requires the highest mental and spiritual faculties" deserves to be read. I couldn't agree more. Thank god for the impossibility of removing subjectivity from the artist. Shoot, ALL art for that matter.