It seems obvious that animation companies want their animation to be good. As humans, we are usually attracted to things that have visually appealing and attractive designs. Our eyes just immediately follow and gravitate toward things that have the nicest colors, the smoothest movements, and most appealing designs. We want to feel that satisfaction by seeing something that just looks incredibly good. So, it is only natural that then we go and seek out those things and create things that provide us with that level of satisfaction.

That is one reason why movies like Disney's "The Lion King" or DreamWorks' "How to Train Your Dragon" do really well in theaters in the end. The animation provides audiences with a large boost and a great viewing experience. The smooth character movements, the attractive character designs, and the overall beauty of the animated settings and landscapes are very pleasing to watch on the big screen. We love to see perfection at work and will always come back for more.

Given this, there seems to be a surplus of animation with fundamentally unappealing designs.

With Disney's "Coco" with its fluid character designs and movements, we get shows like "South Park" with their stiff movements and bulbous head and body shapes. With every "Beauty and the Beast" and "Gravity Falls" come shows like "Aqua Teen Hunger Force," "Home Movies," and "Beavis and Butt-Head." In a world that is dominated by the idea of appeal, with its intense desire to be desirable, it just seems odd to have these shows exist. Yes, every art style is different and animation styles follow that trend as well so it is hard to say what is "attractive" and what is not. However, we feel natural aversion and attraction to aspects of our life. We see that with general feelings towards puppies as opposed to spiders. We have a natural inclination to know what we find to be fundamentally appealing.

However, one thing that I must note about these shows is that though they are not fundamentally attractive in design and in overall animation, they are by no means BAD shows. "South Park" is one of the most popular adult-centered cartoons of all times, being on television for several years. Likewise, the other shows mentioned have their own popularity and fan base that remains loyal despite the design. So it is obvious that despite the fundamentally harsh designs and animations, there is something that is definitely working in these shows. This begs us to ask the question: what?

Is there a way to get these fundamentally off-putting designs or typically unpopular design and animation choices to work? Well, our interest and the popularity of the shows seem to suggest yes. Perhaps mainly it has to do with how the shows present themselves. All of these shows have adult themes and adult-level commentary. For example, "South Park" is known for taking society's current political or social interest and making them the subject of an episodic critique. These shows do not shy away from topics such as sex, drugs, violence, and corruption. In fact, they seem to embrace them in a way to provide their views with an adult-minded level of entertainment. They thrive off of playing with the rough edges of our world.

And this is where the animation and design can really shine. Yes, good animation is fantastic and appealing, but often animation has to match the tone of its show or movie. A show that focuses on rough themes and humor can really have its commentary and jokes shine when it is complemented by equally rough design and animation. In this way, the storytelling aspects and the visual aspects align perfectly, making the joke and its message equally humorous and appealing. Thus, when bolstering a matching tone, rough or "bad" animation and design actually do well to add more to a show rather than take away from it.

Animation can come in all types and styles; it is important to know when and how to properly acknowledge and use them.