Resumen de la tesis
Los Recursos de la Animaci—n en Dibujo: Tendencias y Pr‡cticas del Filme de Autor

      (English)
      
       We have started off from the general hypothesis that animation cinema does not share the same genetic build as live action cinema. By raising this hypothesis we focus on the idea that an enormous misconstruction underlies the history of animation cinema, not only in terms of reception and interpretation (by the public) but also, and foremost, in the actual practices of animated films production and direction: this misconstruction is justifiedly related to a general belief that, because they share, generally speaking, the same technological resources, live action cinema and animation would also share an identical grammar in terms of expressiveness. What we would like emphasise throughout the whole work developed in this thesis is that the act of animating should not be confused with the technology that supports it; thus it is our desire to convey the complexity of animation as a language, being that very complexity what bequeaths its own singularity.
       Between live action cinema and animation cinema there is not even a coincidence in terms of the formation of both languages, and we have set out in search of that specific genealogy of animation; particularly in the first chapter, where we have tried to detect in drawing a profound and crucial contamination, from grassroots, in the entire practice of animating. Framed by the context of the animation of drawings, the act of animating is fundamentally plastic, carrying with it all the problematics and qualities inherent to static images, whether they may arise from the field of plastic arts or from wider (and, at times, remoter) affiliations such as engraving, lithography, printing press and typographic arts in general. 
       The purpose of this work, in its pursuit to reveal a fundamental misconstruction, aims to detect its presence in the foundations that fundament all the predominant tendency of the animation industry; the characteristics that structure this way of understanding and executing animation, evolve precisely from this ill-defined relation with real image, viewed, in this sense, as a model to the configuration of animated images. In this context, we consider it crucial to manifest, as a principle, but also, and foremost, in practices, that another way of animating is not only possible, but also more faithful to the very construction of the act of animating. 
       Lastly, and in line with the attempt to further examine the potential generated by the hypotheses raised in this text, it becomes necessary to establish a work that will allow the definition and refinement of the typological features that form the language of animation. Given the fact that we reject that animation is defined in a relationship of proximity and dependence towards live action cinema; and also given the fact that our aim is to release animation cinema from the parameters that define it within the framework of commercially and industrially oriented production, it becomes therefore necessary to establish a whole body of positive work aiming at the definition of what we feel the language of animation truly is. And, once again, such work cannot be detached from the actual objects and the actual practices that give shape and, therefore, expression to animation as a language in its own right.