But is it ART?

I have no idea what she is talking about.

The Pixar movies are not just popular art, they are people-pleasing popular art that recycles fairly familiar conventions - the animated equivalent of Hollywood comedies of the 1930's and 40's, which means plots with good guys, bad guys and funny guys (and occasionally girls), with lots of action thrown in. Their urge toward conformity stands out starkly if you put them beside such subversive television cartoons as "South Park" or the venerable "Simpsons," which, in addition to satire, offers some of the most innovative and unsettling color in any art form at the moment.

Yes the Pixar films are more 'conventional' and family friendly than either The Simpsons or South Park, but what the hell does she mean by, "which, in addition to satire, offers some of the most innovative and unsettling color in any art form at the moment."

That sentence befuddles me.

For one thing, Simpsons is so inferior to South Park at the moment that I'd hesitate to mention them in the same sentence anymore. You might as well say, 'both Family Circus and Boondocks bring a new reality to modern day comic strips'.

And another thing, both South Park and Simpsons are limited animation shows (South Park is more limited, yet also more innovative) that aren't particularly special from a visual perspective. On both those shows content is king. Likewise visually the Pixar films can be stunning, but what all six movies have going for them that other computer animated films have lacked has been story, story, story, and performance, performance, performance. They hire the best voices for the characters, not just some star they hope to trot out for talk shows. And despite following 'convention' as Ms. Smith says in her article, each film has hit the right notes at the right time and are dedicated to being internally consistent, entertaining, and enjoyable as whatever tension in the story is resolved.

And I can't help but notice that the writer for the NYT is somewhat dismissive towards what I believe has been by far the best Pixar film so far (and the only one to be explicitly anti-PC), The Incredibles (it's the only one that made my list, anyway).

I should be happy that they give this exhibit a serious review in the art section and don't poo-poo it as much as they could have. But, I disagree with many of the conclusions she draws about Pixar and the films they have produced so far. Sounds like a fascinating exhibit though.

I'm also amazed that no distrubition deal has been made yet, Disney and Pixar have been good for each other, I don't think Pixar can match Disney's distrubition and recently (Chicken Little, yucch) has demonstrated it can't match Pixar's product (even if the box office was decent). They need each other, they should just admit it and get back in their dysfunctional relationship again.

(Cars looks like another winner, by the way)