Disdain for new fantasy

[DonTadow]

I want in on the anime-hatefest.

WTF is it with the recent prominence of it in the West lately?

In the last fifteen years or so, it seems to me that the influence of Japanese culture on popular culture in the West has grown exponentially.

Most video games seem to have been designed in Japan, many (if not most) of the cartoons on TV are either dubbed anime or domestic copies of the style, Japanese comics and card games are freakishly popular, and it seems like the art in every other webcomic or internet artist's gallery I see displays heavy manga influence.

Japanese culture is alarmingly pervasive in the modern West. What is it about all things Japanese that so fascinates young Westerners?

Now, I don't have anything against the Japanese personally; I spent a little time there a few years back, and I didn't hate it. Heck, I spent three years in college studying the language, and still like to flatter myself with the conceit that I'm pretty good at it. Languages were what I studied in college, and my interest in Japanese was primarily linguistic. The Japanese Culture Envy bug never bit me.

The problem doesn't lie with the Japanese; the blame can be laid at the feet of modern youth in the West.

There's clearly an enormous market over here for Imported Japanese Coolness. Things like anime, manga, Pokemon cards, and Final Fantasy video games wouldn't have so much space given over to them in stores and on the airwaves if there weren't such a huge and hungry herd of cultural disciples, eagerly awaiting the next OAV or card-game expansion. Its ubiquity permeates every facet of the American entertainment industry: toys, games, clothes, books, movies--a portion of nearly every department will be sure to contain a selection of Japanese merchandise, or Japanese-themed merchandise, domestic copies of Japanese stuff, or domestic merchandise that's obviously been heavily influenced by Japan.

It seems like nearly every young person I meet nowadays sports a T-shirt with an anime character, wants to visit Japan, is playing a Japanese video game, wants desperately to learn Japanese, draws a manga-style comic, peppers their speech with Japanese words and phrases, constantly talks about what's happening in Inu-yasha, or has a kanji tattoo. It's almost as if these people wish they were Japanese...

Seriously, what is it about all things Japanese that appeals to people today? What do you find so lacking in your own culture that you find in such abundance in Japan's? What causes you to reject your own heritage and run off to worship at someone else's cultural altar?

Frankly, I'd rather not see my Dungeons and Dragons contaminated by its influence.

I've been into it for about 14 years simply because I saw the lack of creativity in media a while ago. Not as much as books as it is television and movies. Original american movies either rehash the same thing over and over with no substance to characters and no consequence or it steals others ideas and then remakes them (look at the fall television schedule).

Anime has deeper character development, especially when compared to american cartoons, and realistic underlying storylines. Sorry, but d and d has already been influenced by the genre else it would have remained a hack and slash wargame.

There are more dungeons and dragons anime than there are cartoons. The two naturally mimic each other. A lot of fantasy anime is based around the concept of the party and the party matures from episode to episode. Main characters die, villians win and things move. I can't think of one dungeons and dragons cartoon (not even the dungeons and dragons cartoon) that has captured the essence of dungeons and dragons as opposed to anime.

Sorry, unless its harry potter kids aren't reading as much as they are now becuase of the need for instant gratification, so that leaves movies and television, and the only thing out there with actual character development are the anime.

 

[Clavis]

I will posit the idea that our desires and standards (aesthetic, moral, etc.) are the product of a dynamic relationship between three factors:
Biology - genetic and epigenetic factors for example
Society: The cultural norms imposed on the individual and accepted by them
Personal Psychology: Desires that are the result of the personal history of the individual.

We know that monkeys have a sense of when they are being treated unfairly. Recent research indicate a real brain difference between those who self-identify as Conservative and those who declare themselves to be Liberal. We also know that the proportions that constitute beauty in woman (although not the size) are universal in every culture on Earth, from the most primitive to the most advanced. So I believe there are some universals with regard to aesthetics and morality, but that they are expressed differently in every culture, and every individual has their own interpretations of his or her culture's expression.

It is easier to say what isn't beautiful than what is beautiful. Nonetheless, I believe there definitely are better and worse works of art. However, we can't take the argument too far before we simply cross over into a conflict over taste, cultural and personal.

Some questions I ask myself to determine is a work of art is "good" are:
Does this art display technical skill beyond that of an ordinary person?
Does experiencing this art deepen my appreciation for my own life?
Does this art encapsulate the experience of some other person or persons in a meaningful way?
Is this art beautiful?
Does this art startle me into considering some point of view I may have been ignoring?
Does this art hold my interest?
Is the message of this art timeless?
Does this art have a message for all people, as opposed to only those of a particular culture?

For myself, the more "yes" answers I can find to those questions, the "better" I think the art is. There are definitely lesser works that I personally find more entertaining than greater works, however.

Yes, I can watch "crap", find it entertaining, and still know it's "crap". I often do it on purpose, and have a particular love of B-horror movies and 42nd Street grindhouse films. In some ways, I find bad art more interesting than "good" art. There are only a few ways to do things right, but many, many ways to do them wrong.

 

[DonTadow]

Anime is not a broad art style and far from encompassing a heck of a lot, it defines itself more by what it eschews.

Just sayin'.

That comes from someone whom would probably go to the Louvre and say its just a bunch of paintings and a few statues. There are a lot of people on here with such a finite definition of such an expansive subject that you should feel embarrassed for being so wrong about your definition.

What makes up anime
art
story
writing
subgenre.

The art ranges from the spiky hair seen in some anime to the heavily painted drawings seen in anime like Proxy to the movie adaptation of blood pluss. There is a long range of style between there.

Stories range from silly and light to serious and heavy tone. Heck, the really deep stories they can't even show on american television because of their realistic nature. Some have heroes, some have heroins some have loose translations of antiheroes thats as close to anything to root for during the series.

Anime is traditionally heavy on dialogue, something you don't find in a lot of media that has action in it. The writing, even in the light stuff, is traditionally heavy as the explanation is often as important as the actions. This primarily is what separates one anime from another. What would separate a save the universe anime like dragon ball z to a save my home anime like Naruto (to use the most popular american adaptation). For fans its the difference between slayers and Record of Lodoss War.

Then there's the genre which I think alot of people on here are confused about, because there are at least 4 or 5 different sub genres. First, we can seperate them in fantasy and scifi. Then they break out into those that are pg and those that are r. Those that are x is hentai and not considered anime.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I've got to agree with Hussar, even though I think I know where Merlion comes from, mainly because I'm sitting in the same boat, or have been for quite a while.

The point is that there's two completely different, and often incompatible, evaluation systems (for lack of better words) being applied to the same thing, mainly artwork.

The one Merlion (and I, for most cases) applies is the very subjective question"Does it entertain me?", which will derive its results from the personal feedback upon experiencing the respective peice of art (story, song, poem, picture, etc.)

The other one is a far more objective (yet not 100% for the simple reason that art IS more malleable than science) question of "How many criterias of this specific kind of artwork does the piece in question contain, and how well are they executed?" (also for lack of more concise words ).

The point is that art always develops a specific style, be it in painting, writing (poetry as well as prose), composing. Art is grouped into a style by common elements that all of them contain, be it a certain way to rhyme, a certain way to paint, a certain structure to how stories are composed, etc. These elements can be analyzed for the quality of execution by the artist, and hence a certain standard of "good" or "bad" art can be established.

What keeps me from actually caring about all that is the fact that it is a DAMN lot of work (and I'm a lazy-ass where analyzing my passtimes is concerned ), and it tends to draw your enjoyment away in place of a constant critical state of mind. And there's nothing I hate more than sitting in a movie with a few friends, listening to one of them constantly bemoaning one or another failure of the director/actor/script writer while I'm trying to enjoy the movie. That doesn't keep me from recognizing the fact that there is a pretty broad range of quality between "good" and "bad" artwork, and it doesn't depend on me liking it or not.

In the reverse, though, me liking something or not does NOT depend on it being judged "good" or "bad" either.

Edit: And the recent (read last 40 years) developments and discoveries in quantum mechanics tend to make me wonder how "objective" some natural phenomena like particles really are...since we can only percieve them through measuring them, and through measuring them we change them. I think Mother Nature is just flipping us a good-natured finger in our eternal search for "objective" and "scientifically quantifyable" truth, but that's just me. In that manner, "anime" seems to be an artisitc quantum...it can take MANY forms, and they all are modified in their effect through the expectations the viewer is already bringing towards the experiment of watching it.

 

[Merlion]

Not really. There are still objective standards that can differentiate one work from another. You can say one guitarist is better than another by how they play their instrument (one may miss notes/chords that the other consistently hits). .

Yep, the physical skill of one muscian can be better than another. But lets say they both write their own music. How does one determine which song is "better" than the other? Since in the end, the purpose of both is to be enjoyed.

One writer may be far more effective at communicating ideas than another

He may be far more effective at communicating them to some, but far less with others. And another author may be the reverse.

I'll agree that where you draw the line of "good vs bad" is somewhat subjective, but I also feel there comes a time when something is so inferior you just have to call it bad and leave it at that.

Why? and to what purpose? And what does that mean for all the other people who consider the same work good?

 

[Raven Crowking]

How does one determine which song is "better" than the other? Since in the end, the purpose of both is to be enjoyed.

I would say that the purpose of all art is to communicate; that communication is not always meant to be enjoyed.

 

[Merlion]

Which means that we are having a disconnect in terminology. To me, critique has a very specific meaning and has very, very little to do with personal opinion.

Yea, thats what I was talking about. You seem to be coming from an academic/clinical standpoint based on criteria set down by the "literary elite" or whatever...people "educated" in these matters, supposedly. (I dont say that to be derisive of you or your personal opinions, just of the whole objective criteria for creativity concept.)

I'm coming from a rather more "basic" perspective, based on the idea that everyone is going to have different opinions on a work of art, and that everyones opinions, thoughts and feelings are of equal value.

Again, this is a major semantic gulf we're having, so I think we're pretty much talking about different topics

No, I just have less disconnect between "topics" than most people. One, just one mind you, of the issues I have with the notion of "art is objective" is that with any given piece of art many people are going to like it/enjoy it/consider it to be good, while others wont/don't/consider it bad. In your philosophy, as I understand it, the people who consider an obectively "bad" work to be "good" are objectively wrong in their opinion, and it tends to follow, therefore, in some way deficient wether its in knowledge, intelligence, or "taste". I disagree with this conclusion.

As was mentioned, taste is subjective and has very little to do with quality

See this I just cant wrap my mind around. Taste is of course subjective...but when talking about art, so is quality. Therefore, in art, taste and quality are both going to be different even with respect to the same work, as applied by different people.

Unless your willing to accept the notion that some peoples opinions are simply "wrong"

Happens all the time. Heck, look at the MASSIVE body of work that comes out every year critiquing Shakespeare. New concepts and new ways of critiquing come and go. As ideas change, so does our value system of judging a work

Which, as near as I can tell, means it isnt objective. Objective things tend not to change with time. The basic requirements of building a working boat are the same now as a thousand years ago. But as you say, the opinion of the "elite" the "in the know" folks about what constitutes "good" and "bad" art changes regularly, and often even these "experts" disagree about a given work.

All strong signs of subjectivity.

That's because authorial intent is meaningless. Authors can be wrong about the meaning of their text. Authors can lie. Authors can be misrepresented. And they can misrepresent themselves. They can even change their minds over time about the meaning of a work. Appeals to authorial intent have been discredited for a very long time.

Discredited by who? See this is part of the thing...I don't accept the notion that anyone is able to dictate to anyone else the validity or relevence of things within these types of issues.

That aside, your misunderstanding me I believe. When I speak of the purpose of a work, what I mean is that most works are made with one or more purposes, and if they succeed at least for some at one or more of those purposes, then they are successful or "good" works. And one of the main purposes of a work, even when it has others, is to be enjoyed. Other common purposes are to communicate something, to achieve a catharsis for the creator and/or audience, or simply because the creator wishes to see if they can create a work of a certain nature. Most if not all art suceeds in its purposes for at least some of those involved.

However, there is often a commonality of experience that can be explored. And, again, just because experiences differ, doesn't mean that you cannot quantify elements of that experience

But it does mean you cannot, or should not try to say someones experience or opinion of a work is incorrect. That someone is wrong to consider a work "good" because according to the "experts" its "bad"

I think one of the biggest disconnects here is the idea that if something is bad, then it has no value. That's not true. Star Wars is a bad movie. It's cliche, hackneyed, poorly acted, poorly written, derivative, the works. Yet, it spawned the Summer Blockbuster, some of which have been great movies. So, something that is objectively bad can be subjectively enjoyed and can still have lots of value.

But it can also have value in and of itself. Many consider Star Wars a wonderful movie...even including some who are "educated" in such things. So are their opinions "wrong?"

Try watching the first Dungeons and Dragons movie and tell me that again. Or Hawk the Slayer. Or Dungeonmaster. Or reading a Gor book. Listen to any number of one hit wonder 80's bubblegum pop bands. The list goes on and on. It can't possibly all be good

it cant all be "good" for everyone no. But all of it will be good for someone, probably more than one someone, meaning either 1) it isnt objectively bad or 2) some peoples opinions essentially "don't count"

 

[Merlion]

I would say that the purpose of all art is to communicate; that communication is not always meant to be enjoyed.

I say the purpose of art is in the intent of the creator and to some extent the experience of the experiencer.

But either way, it remains the same. Most art has many purposes. And it generally succeeds in those purposes with some, and fails with others.

 

[Merlion]

[QUOTEGeron Raveneye]The one Merlion (and I, for most cases) applies is the very subjective question"Does it entertain me?", which will derive its results from the personal feedback upon experiencing the respective peice of art (story, song, poem, picture, etc.)[/QUOTE]


That isnt the only question I ask. However, I believe virtually all works of art have entertainment/enjoyment as one of their often several purposes. And I do feel that quite a few works have it as their main or sole purpose. Many of these get labeled "bad" because they are not, nor do they try to be, exceedingly deep or masterpieces of any given set of criteria for the artform, they exist simply to be entertaining and enjoyable. But for many people, not trying to live up to academic criteria makes them "bad"

The other one is a far more objective (yet not 100% for the simple reason that art IS more malleable than science) question of "How many criterias of this specific kind of artwork does the piece in question contain, and how well are they executed?" (also for lack of more concise words

But often those very criteria are themselves subjective. Even professional critics and other "experts" often disagree about which criteria should be used, which are the more important specific criteria, and how many a work can fail to live up to, in their eyes, and still be "good"

Basically the criteria used to "judge" arent are sets of codified, and in some cases relatively widely held, opinions.

The point is that art always develops a specific style, be it in painting, writing (poetry as well as prose), composing. Art is grouped into a style by common elements that all of them contain, be it a certain way to rhyme, a certain way to paint, a certain structure to how stories are composed, etc. These elements can be analyzed for the quality of execution by the artist, and hence a certain standard of "good" or "bad" art can be established.

Some times yes, some times no. Certain highly specific artforms do have extremely stringest criteria, especially some forms of poetry as I understand. A Haiku or Sonnet which breaks the rules of those forms could I suppose be called a "bad" Haiku or Sonnet, but that doesnt necessarily make it a valueless work of art.

As far as more generall purposes...there are so many ways of telling a story or painting a picture or whatever, to try and come up with a set of set in stone criteria for all of them is a fool's errand. What about works that fall outside any established style or genre?

What keeps me from actually caring about all that is the fact that it is a DAMN lot of work (and I'm a lazy-ass where analyzing my passtimes is concerned ), and it tends to draw your enjoyment away in place of a constant critical state of mind. And there's nothing I hate more than sitting in a movie with a few friends, listening to one of them constantly bemoaning one or another failure of the director/actor/script writer while I'm trying to enjoy the movie. That doesn't keep me from recognizing the fact that there is a pretty broad range of quality between "good" and "bad" artwork, and it doesn't depend on me liking it or not.

The thing is, most or all attempts to define "objective" criteria for artwork still boil down to someone, or a group of someones, liking it or not.

 

[Nifft]

I would say that the purpose of all art is to communicate; that communication is not always meant to be enjoyed.

Hi, this post is all about artists, REAL ARTISTS. This post is awesome. My name is Nifft and I can't stop thinking about art. These guys are cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.

Facts:
1. Artists are mammals.
2. Artists suffer ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the artist is to flip out and communicate with people.


Weapons and gear:

Testimonial:

Artists can paint anything they want! Artists deconstruct unconscious social and political taboos ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are so crazy and awesome that they recontextualize symbolic meaning ALL the time. I heard that there was this artist who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon the artist painted the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw an artist totally caricature some kid just because the kid opened a window.

And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't believe that artists have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will recontextualize you!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.

Cheers, -- N