Is Anime Art? (was Anime presentation for school)
Gilles Poitras
Anime presentation for school
A lively discussion of the merits of anime as art has started there.
As that is a bit of a topic drift I am starting a new thread here.
If you are interested please read that discussion and post here.
--
Gilles Poitras
Obsession: Anime
Profession: Librarian
http://www.sirius.com/~cowpunk/
Red Bat
Gilles Poitras wrote in message ...
>There is a thread called:
> Anime presentation for school
>
>A lively discussion of the merits of anime as art has started there.
>
>As that is a bit of a topic drift I am starting a new thread here.
>
>If you are interested please read that discussion and post here.
As long as this thread doesn't get too trolly, I'll join in.
In my opinion, anime is art, just like all creative endeavours with room for
interpretation (more on this later). Whether it is good art or bad, is
something I leave to the individual, as I do not believe this is something
we can or should judge objectively. Some people like to draw a line between
'fine art' and other art. I do not. I have yet to hear a good reason for
such a seperation, and I doubt I will ever hear one that will convince me
(although I am open to new ideas).
Another thing I'm interested in, is the viewers influence on the art. In
other words, I'm not as interested in what the creators of a piece of art
were trying to say, as I am in the different emotions/ideas it stirs in
people. I guess this is the reason I prefer the visual/audiovisual arts, as
they are much more open to interpretation. This is probably also the reason
why I don't consider creative endeavours with NO room for interpretation not
to be art (although whether such things exist is debatable).
I'd be happy to elaborate if this isn't very understandable (English is not
my first language, and explaining very personal ideas about what art is and
what art isn't is quite hard to do in writing).
-Red Bat, hoping Mr. Rayman will stay out of this one...
Rob Kelk
<cow...@sirius.com> wrote:
>There is a thread called:
> Anime presentation for school
>
>A lively discussion of the merits of anime as art has started there.
>
>As that is a bit of a topic drift I am starting a new thread here.
>
>If you are interested please read that discussion and post here.
(I've been following the discussion, but have avoided adding to it as
I usually don't care to feed trolls.)
Most of the discussion in that thread appears, IMHO, to be around the
question "is a particular anime title a work of art?" This is a
completely different question than the one you've asked, Gilles, so I
won't base any of my discussion on that thread.
I'm going to argue from analogy here. (Yes, I know that's dangerous,
but it serves the purpose in this case.) Many folks own cameras of
some sort, anything from use-once-then-throw-away cheapies to
single-lens reflex swappable-lens beauties. Most of the people who
own cameras use them to take photographs. Usually, these photos are
not "art"; they're simply records of visual events. However, some
people are quite capable of making photographic artworks, and there
are museums dedicated to showing this art form. (One of them, the
Canadain Museum of Contemporary Photography, is in my home city.) So,
is photography art? Yes and no.
Bringing this back to anime: Many shows (such as Pokemon, Ranma 1/2,
and Bubblegum Crisis) are simply intended as pastimes. I doubt anyone
would call these shows "art". Other anime (such as Grave of the
Fireflies) are meant to convey a message. These shows may or may not
be "art" - it depends on the intentions of the creator. Then there
are the rare few productions that are obviously "art" - I'd include
"Royal Space Force" here, although YMMV.
So, is anime art? My answer is "Yes and no, but usually no".
--
Rob Kelk http://robkelk.tripod.com/ rob...@ottawa.com
"I'm *not* a kid! Nyyyeaaah!" - Skuld (in "Oh My Goddess!" OAV #3)
"When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the fear of
childishness and the desire to be very grown-up." - C.S. Lewis, 1947
Doctor Chibi-Moon
believe that anyone is considering that anime is *not* art. A dictionary
definition of "art" includes: 'human creative skill or its application
[or] work showing this'; 'branches of creative activity concerned with
the production of imaginative designs, sounds or ideas'; and 'creative
activity resulting in visual representation'. Nothing there really
excludes anime.
When someone looks at something that fits the above definitions and
sneers "that's not art", it sounds uppity and pretentious. Even if it's
said by someone who is considered to be a respected authority on art, to
me it just sounds closed-minded. Why can't people just admit to
disliking a form of art, rather than proclaiming it not to be art?
There are forms of art that I don't particularly enjoy. Damien Hirst's
work with dead animals strikes me as nothing more than pointless and
tragically wasteful shock-value stuff that shouldn't even exist-- but
that's my opinion. Hirst must be trying to express something with this
particular form of creativity, and that's what makes it art, even if I
don't like it. I don't think much of some kinds of abstract art either
(you know, the kind that museums and governments pay millions of dollars
for, even if it only consists of three vertical red and blue stripes on
a huge canvas) because I don't get anything out of looking at it. Maybe
the creators of these pieces have something really deep and important to
say, and are expressing it in seemingly random bursts of colour and
shape, but if the artist isn't there to explain it to me, I can't see
that.
I think I just answered one of my own questions-- for some people,
admitting that they find a particular art form incomprehensible, or
admitting they can't see the meaning behind it, would be embarrassing
because they think it would make them look like idiots. In other words,
rather than risk looking stupid, they proclaim anything they don't
understand to be "trash" or "not art".
--Brenda
Dyson
Gilles Poitras wrote:
> There is a thread called:
> Anime presentation for school
>
> A lively discussion of the merits of anime as art has started there.
>
> As that is a bit of a topic drift I am starting a new thread here.
>
> If you are interested please read that discussion and post here.
Of course it is.
Anime is as valid as an art form as any other form of
filmed entertainment media or, for that matter, any sort
of applied and/or creative arts intended for commercial
use. Anything more than that is purely subjective, and
really doesn't have much of a place in discussion (ie.
judging the merits of individual anime. We all know that
"Roots Search" is crap, but that still doesn't change the
fact that it is art. Crap art, but still art.)
Anime is animation, and animation is considered to be an
artform. Granted, it's considered to be a low-artform by
many, but still it's still an artform.
Animation, and comics, are lumped together under the
heading of Sequential Art, and one should read Scott
McCloud's "Understanding Comics" for a much more in-depth
take on the subject. All you really have to do is exchange
the word 'comics' with the word 'anime' and it all applies
the same.
Dyson
> I'm going to argue from analogy here. (Yes, I know that's dangerous,
> but it serves the purpose in this case.) Many folks own cameras of
> some sort, anything from use-once-then-throw-away cheapies to
> single-lens reflex swappable-lens beauties. Most of the people who
> own cameras use them to take photographs. Usually, these photos are
> not "art"; they're simply records of visual events. However, some
> people are quite capable of making photographic artworks, and there
> are museums dedicated to showing this art form. (One of them, the
> Canadain Museum of Contemporary Photography, is in my home city.) So,
> is photography art? Yes and no.
Not to sound like a troll, but I have a question for you.
Do you consider portaiture painting to be art?
Dyson
Dyson wrote:
Y'know, this didn't seem to be as disjointed when I
posted it. ; )
SonofWashu
bad. Bad art is still art - look at Mike Kelly or even Spumco.
Is anime art? Would anyone ask if German paintings were art? Chinese
literature? American live-action cinema?
Even Aaron Spelling-produced TV junk is, by technicality, art. I apologize for
that.
I can't imagine anyone arguing that Angel's Egg isn't art... but then, I can't
see why anyone wouldn't think Ranma 1/2 isn't art.
If it conveys something, in any way or intent, it's art. If it moves you,
alters your perspective, or reinforces something within you, it still gets to
be art. If you think it sucks, it's still art.
Skeleton Man
create an image is art....
--
Skeleton Man
http://users.lvcm.com/artfx
Seen Chaos yet?
"Dyson" <lo-...@usa.net> wrote in message news:3A22988B...@usa.net...
SonofWashu
quite a bit of what he has to say, though. Regardless,
>All you really have to do is exchange
>the word 'comics' with the word 'anime' and it all applies
>the same.
Wouldn't the count-the-frames-that... part, get really exhausting, in terms of
frame-count on animation, though?
Common sense says it all applies, but life has proven too many times, a good
cartoon (er, animation... well, something mature sounding) does not make a good
comic (er, sequential, non-moving art), and the reverse too. You just can not
do it, many times. They aren't the same. Like dogs and cats, they're mammals,
but they ain't the same beast.
For example: You cannot make a scene-for-scene, shot-for-shot 'Sin City'
animated film.
Another: You cannot make a scene-for-scene, shot-for-shot 'Ghost in the Shell
film from the comic, or a comic, done likewise, from the movie.
SonofWashu
>> not "art"; they're simply records of visual events.
If it records any impact of what is going on, any emotional value, or
political, or social, or religious, or well, any value or affect at all: it's
art. Note: looking at other people's photo albums is not highly entertaining.
Looking at those same photo's when their mounted on a wall and have little
labels next to them can take hours away from your life.
It's all in the context of presentation.
DiPiCarat
>
> Animation, and comics, are lumped together under the
> heading of Sequential Art, and one should read Scott
> McCloud's "Understanding Comics" for a much more in-depth
> the word 'comics' with the word 'anime' and it all applies
> the same.
This brings to mind McCloud's definition of Art. Anything humans do that's not
directly related to survival.
DiPiCarat
Water Dragon Productions
see neat stuff at http://www.improfanfic.com
"Good is better than Evil. It costs less and does a better job.
There you go - Superman distilled down to laundry detergent."
-Jeph Loeb
"Men may control the free world, but women control the boobs."
-Brent Sienna, www.pvponline.com
Red Bat
not
>directly related to survival.
LOL! I like this definition.
-Red Bat
Dyson
SonofWashu wrote:
Exactly. I can't even believe that after all this time,
people still try to argue the point that anime isn't art.
All anime conveys something, even hentai, and no matter how
insignificant that something appears to be, it's what makes
anime art. (Okay, I'll say 'most' anime, as I'm still trying
to figure out what "Roots Search" tried to convey. ;)
Using Ranma as an example, and to me Ranma is one of
the best examples of society's need for easily digested art-
forms. People need an outlet to vent with, or just to
relax with, and one of the most enjoyable ways to release
stress and frustration is to laugh (yeah, there's that *other*
way, but that's obvious... and someone who watches H can
answer it better than I. ;)
Art doesn't have to get the brain juices flowing in an
intellectually challenging way, all it has to do is to
strike you on a certain cord. Ranma is funny, and that's
its intent. Comedy, or humour to be more accurate, is one
of the hardest things to convey to a mass audience, ask a
comedian or an actor. The fact that Ranma is loved by many
people shows that it works. Sure, you could argue that art
that appeals to the lowest common denominator and that fact
undermine's it's value as art (opiate of the masses anyone?)
but to me, that's its true value.
It strikes me as odd that many people think that art has to
be serious and stuffy to be considered "real art", and that
comedy is considered to be a "low art." The thing with Ranma,
as opposed to say "Friends", is that Ranma came from the mind
of a single individual without a team of highly paid comedy
writers, focus groups, and a troupe of actors. The fact that
a single person created, and brought to maturity, one of the
most beloved anime (well, manga, to be accurate) comedies of
all time shows a "true" artist at work, and personally, I
don't that that acheivement should be denied her.
(...and I'm not even a Takahashi or Ranma fan. :)
Here endeth the rant.
(*pant, pant*)
Joshua Kaufman
>
> There is a thread called:
> Anime presentation for school
>
> A lively discussion of the merits of anime as art has started there.
>
> As that is a bit of a topic drift I am starting a new thread here.
>
> If you are interested please read that discussion and post here.
>
There's a really simple answer.
It's as much art as *any* (and I mean any) other medium of expression,
be it music, other animation/TV/movies (live action or not), painting,
sculpting, archetecture, writing, or what have you.
And thus, anime isn't any more art than other animation, or whatnot...
-Joshua
--
AOL-IM: TerraEpon ICQ: 5404138
Dyson
SonofWashu wrote:
> I like McCloud's work, and I respect much of his opinions. I disagree with
> quite a bit of what he has to say, though. Regardless,
I disagree with much of it too, but I still think it's an
excellent primer for this sort of discussion before someone
just jumps into the topic head-first.
>> All you really have to do is exchange
>> the word 'comics' with the word 'anime' and it all applies
>> the same.
>
>
> Wouldn't the count-the-frames-that... part, get really exhausting, in terms of
> frame-count on animation, though?
Yes, it's the difference between the two mediums, but I was
refering to the over-all message that McCloud convey's with
his book. I suppose I should have also said "and replace
references to 'tradional still art' with 'film'."
(Besides, there are people who count the frames...)
> Common sense says it all applies, but life has proven too many times, a good
> cartoon (er, animation... well, something mature sounding) does not make a good
> comic (er, sequential, non-moving art), and the reverse too. You just can not
> do it, many times. They aren't the same. Like dogs and cats, they're mammals,
> but they ain't the same beast.
Which is true, but is beyond the scope of the point I was
making. Translation between the two mediums is difficult
at best, just ask Jeff Smith about that one, but it's at
the fundemental level where I was drawing my comparisons.
The 'common sense' part, as you put it.
Both mediums draw from different influences, which are pretty
obvious. Animation draws from film, and comics draw from,
for lack of a better term, 'traditional' still art. As
illustrated by the movie "Johnny Mnemonic" someone who's
talented in one area, isn't exactly talented in the other.
What works on the canvas, doesn't automatically work on the
screen.
(Just to explain, the movie was directed by Canadian painter
Robert Longo, and it was his first film. It's not the only
reason why the film turned out like it did, as it's a good
example of how studio execs can really mess up a decent
screenplay, but it illustrates why it turned out as visually
skewered as it did.)
...examples cut...
Bruce Grubb
<the...@yucc.yorku.ca> wrote:
>Okay, from a completely dry and logical perspective here, I can't
>believe that anyone is considering that anime is *not* art. A dictionary
>definition of "art" includes: 'human creative skill or its application
>[or] work showing this'; 'branches of creative activity concerned with
>the production of imaginative designs, sounds or ideas'; and 'creative
>activity resulting in visual representation'. Nothing there really
>excludes anime.
>
>When someone looks at something that fits the above definitions and
>sneers "that's not art", it sounds uppity and pretentious. Even if it's
>said by someone who is considered to be a respected authority on art, to
>me it just sounds closed-minded.
Of course the filpside is that like anthropology the definition is so broad
as to exclude nothing which tend to render it slightly less than useless.
The Smithsonain museum complex is case in point; it is in reality a
collection of anthropology museums each on focusing on a particular subfield.
Dictionary definiton are notoriusly inaccurate. For example most defintions
of science would exclude the social sciences like anthropology, archeology,
socialolgy, history, and so on (a fact the creationists use
>Why can't people just admit to
>disliking a form of art, rather than proclaiming it not to be art?
Well some the quality of some stuff makes wonder about what is called art.
The jokes about modern abstract art are legion especially the ones where the
painting is hung upside down or sidewise; a Gilligan's Island episode poked
fun a modern art and IIRC 60 minutes had a clip of an art auction where the
buyers were told that picture # <whatever> in their program was sideways.
Sometimes I am reminded of old Seseme Street skit where Ernie has a blank
sheet of paper when it comes to modern abstract art.
Burt: "What is that?"
Ernie: "It's a picture of a cow eating grass."
Burt: "Where's the grass?"
Ernie: "The cow ate it."
Burt: "Where's the cow?"
Ernie: "Well after she ate all the grass...
Burt & Ernie together: "..why should she hang agound anymore."
ALM
medium. It is art if handled by people worthy of the title of artists;
people who tell compelling and innovative stories with anime, or who elevate
the form of animation. If anime is poorly written, or just another by the
numbers production to make money, it's no more art than your average crappy
American sitcom or Hollywood idiot-fest.
"Red Bat" <im...@sure.yet> wrote in message
news:YguU5.1205$Pe4.1...@juliett.dax.net...
>
> Gilles Poitras wrote in message ...
> >There is a thread called:
> > Anime presentation for school
> >
> >A lively discussion of the merits of anime as art has started there.
> >
> >As that is a bit of a topic drift I am starting a new thread here.
> >
> >If you are interested please read that discussion and post here.
>
>
Arnold Kim
Gilles Poitras <cow...@sirius.com> wrote in message
news:cowpunk-316983...@news.sirius.com...
> There is a thread called:
> Anime presentation for school
>
> A lively discussion of the merits of anime as art has started there.
>
> As that is a bit of a topic drift I am starting a new thread here.
>
> If you are interested please read that discussion and post here.
Well, anime can be looked at in a couple of ways:
1) Anime can be regarded as simply slightly different paintings filmed in
sequence accompanied by music and vocal performance.
2) Anime can be regarded as live action films with actors and sets that are
drawn instead of "real".
Music, vocal performance, paintings, film- those are all components of
anime. If each individually can be art, why can't anime?
Arnold Kim
Paint a painting, and it's called "art". Put it in motion, and it's called
"kids stuff". Sheesh...
Allan [Weapon X] Liangco
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, 05:57:32 -0800, Gilles Poitras <cow...@sirius.com>
wrote in <cowpunk-316983...@news.sirius.com>:
> There is a thread called:
> Anime presentation for school
> A lively discussion of the merits of anime as art has started there.
> As that is a bit of a topic drift I am starting a new thread here.
> If you are interested please read that discussion and post here.
> --
> Gilles Poitras
> Obsession: Anime
> Profession: Librarian
> http://www.sirius.com/~cowpunk/
Yeah, sure, 'anime' is art, just like how "American animation" is art
and CGI is art. By this general definition even graffiti, comic books,
comic-strips, etc. are also art.
If you were specifically asking if "anime" are 'great works of art',
then my answer would be different. I would say that not all of anime are
'great artworks' to me because of my own personal opinion(s) about each.
I like what I like; I dislike what I don't. This, of course, will differ
among every individual. What one person may consider 'visually
spectacular' may not be the same for another individual. This decision
of what is 'great art' in anime; without including the storyline,
plot(s), and other non-visual elements in the consideration; is best
left up to the individual with their own preferences to decide.
My Transformers comic:
<http://pages.prodigy.net/transformer_mtmterid/Transformer_MTMTErid/fanmade_project/comic-strip.htm>.
Get your Transformers sights, sounds, etc. at my FTP site:
<http://pages.prodigy.net/transformer_mtmterid/Transformer_MTMTErid/TF_server.html>.
My TF fan-made stuff:
http://pages.prodigy.net/transformer_mtmterid/Transformer_MTMTErid/fanmade_project/0.htm
Weapon X <-Allan-> QSB...@prodigy.com
SORTI...@aol.com
Visit my Transformers webpages at:
<http://pages.prodigy.com/Spiders_Web/tf-web.htm>
<http://pages.prodigy.com/Transformers/>
Arnold Kim
SonofWashu <sonof...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001127124210...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
I think part of _that_ is trying to find meaning where there is none in
order to look smart. :P
Personally, I think art is a combination of finding true meaning in a work
and the author instilling meaning into it- consciously or subconsciously.
Of course, the latter would be rather hard to prove...
Arnold Kim
David Johnston
>
> In article <3A229551...@yucc.yorku.ca>, Doctor Chibi-Moon
> <the...@yucc.yorku.ca> wrote:
>
> >Okay, from a completely dry and logical perspective here, I can't
> >believe that anyone is considering that anime is *not* art. A dictionary
> >definition of "art" includes: 'human creative skill or its application
> >[or] work showing this'; 'branches of creative activity concerned with
> >the production of imaginative designs, sounds or ideas'; and 'creative
> >activity resulting in visual representation'. Nothing there really
> >excludes anime.
> >
> >When someone looks at something that fits the above definitions and
> >sneers "that's not art", it sounds uppity and pretentious. Even if it's
> >said by someone who is considered to be a respected authority on art, to
> >me it just sounds closed-minded.
>
> Of course the filpside is that like anthropology the definition is so broad
> as to exclude nothing
A better definition of art, would be "Something original, made for
people to look at".
Doctor Chibi-Moon
Bruce Grubb wrote:
> Of course the filpside is that like anthropology the definition is so broad
> as to exclude nothing which tend to render it slightly less than useless.
> The Smithsonain museum complex is case in point; it is in reality a
> collection of anthropology museums each on focusing on a particular subfield.
Anything that is created purely for its aesthetic value (for people to experience
with their senses for enjoyment or other emotional response, or because the
creator enjoys making it or wants to express emotions) falls under the category
of "art", as opposed to "science" or "medicine" or "mathematics" or "religion".
"Art" is not (or shouldn't be) an emotionally loaded or subjective term, which
people who consider themselves authorities can choose to bestow on (or withhold
from) a particular artist, work, or medium. In other words, if anime isn't art,
what else could it possibly be?
--Brenda
Sean X. Chang
Chika wrote
> > Music, vocal performance, paintings, film- those are all components of
> > anime. If each individually can be art, why can't anime?
>
> I guess that the only reason is that no two people seem to agree on what
> "art" actually is.
Well... I classify art as just some sort of audio or visual manifestation of
creativity.
It's an abstract word, and therefore requires an equally abstract
definition.
Whether something is positive or not varies from person to person, and
that's why some of the shit (literally) you see out there is what other
people
classify as art.
As for anime, yes. It's art to me. I love it, it's creative at times, and I
get
much entertainment out of it. It's that simple.
Kyle Thomas Pope
<the...@yucc.yorku.ca> wrote:
>Anything that is created purely for its aesthetic value (for people to experience
>with their senses for enjoyment or other emotional response, or because the
>creator enjoys making it or wants to express emotions) falls under the category
>of "art", as opposed to "science" or "medicine" or "mathematics" or "religion".
I think it is also possible to incorporate art into other endeavors so
it is not purely for aesthetic value. Buildings serve a practical
purpose but there is as much art as there is engineering in
architecture. Look at cars. Practical vehicles and yet they are
works of art to their designers and palettes for art to their owners.
Plastic and reconstructive surgery are certainly artistic endeavors in
medicine. You can't reconstruct a face or body without aesthetic
considerations. So I don't believe you can really draw a clear line
of demarcation between art and everything else.
Kyle
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered." - No. 6
Arnold Kim
Chika <miy...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a24464d...@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <8vuojd$d9v$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, Arnold Kim <ki...@erols.com>
> wrote:
> > Well, anime can be looked at in a couple of ways:
>
> > 1) Anime can be regarded as simply slightly different paintings filmed
> > in sequence accompanied by music and vocal performance.
>
> > 2) Anime can be regarded as live action films with actors and sets that
> > are drawn instead of "real".
>
> > anime. If each individually can be art, why can't anime?
<snip>
> In some ways it is art, given that it has values that could be taken as
> artistic, just as animation from other countries have also been called art
> in the past. You can't just write animation off as kid's stuff, however.
> Yes, it can be and has been used to entertain children, but as has been
> shown by the Japanese as well as some examples from Canada, the UK, the
> former Eastern European studios, even isolated examples of American
> animation, the picture is far wider than this one use. Animation is an art
> in that sense, one of an army of tools in the overall art of film-making.
>
> It's what you do with it that matters. :)
Of course. I did say it _can_ be art, not that it always _is_ art...:P
Arnold Kim
challenges anyone to find the artistic value in MD Geist...
DiPiCarat
> challenges anyone to find the artistic value in MD Geist...
The mecha designs are nice... Kinda a Koichi Ohata standard, there.
Chika
wrote:
> Well, anime can be looked at in a couple of ways:
> 1) Anime can be regarded as simply slightly different paintings filmed
> in sequence accompanied by music and vocal performance.
> 2) Anime can be regarded as live action films with actors and sets that
> are drawn instead of "real".
> Music, vocal performance, paintings, film- those are all components of
> anime. If each individually can be art, why can't anime?
I guess that the only reason is that no two people seem to agree on what
"art" actually is. Anime is just yet another form that may or may not be
art according to the view of the person reviewing it at any given time.
It's a bit like some of the "art" you see here; for example, one famous
piece was a sheep suspended in formaldehide. This was hailed as an
astouding piece of art, yet I can remember as a child seeing a still-born
dolphin calf in a case suspended in the same way on Clacton pier. That
wasn't art, it was just a curiosity given that, at the time, breeding
dolphins in captivity was pretty much impossible.
In some ways it is art, given that it has values that could be taken as
artistic, just as animation from other countries have also been called art
in the past. You can't just write animation off as kid's stuff, however.
Yes, it can be and has been used to entertain children, but as has been
shown by the Japanese as well as some examples from Canada, the UK, the
former Eastern European studios, even isolated examples of American
animation, the picture is far wider than this one use. Animation is an art
in that sense, one of an army of tools in the overall art of film-making.
It's what you do with it that matters. :)
--
----- Chika - miy...@argonet.co.uk IRCnet#anime MMW CAPOW ZFC/A
//\//
----- CrashnetUK - crashnet.org.uk (come.to/arena.essex)
... Complaints? Write them here legibly [] <-
SonofWashu
>illustrated by the movie "Johnny Mnemonic" someone who's
>talented in one area, isn't exactly talented in the other.
That, and, well, that story was great and sharp, where as, the film was, er,
very nineties. Shotguns, it's all about making your own shotgun. Epicanthic
folds and how they were handled was interesting though.
Now, if only, along with "'s Dracula" and "'s Frankenstien" we can get a Cambel
Soup Can movie.
SonofWashu
>order to look smart. :P
There is nothing in existence which is void of meaning. Many sitcoms mean
people have much time and little brainpower, but there's still meaning there.
>Personally, I think art is a combination of finding true meaning in a work
>and the author instilling meaning into it- consciously or subconsciously.
>Of course, the latter would be rather hard to prove...
A study in semiotics might be useful, here. Personally, I figure art is
beauty, whereas most folks want art to be aesthetics. Everything's beautiful,
not everything is aesthetically pleasing. Pleasure and Pain are not the
separators of art and not-art, they're just taste measurements.
SonofWashu
>to figure out what "Roots Search" tried to convey. ;)
What the heck is "Roots Search" or should I avoid asking?
>The thing with Ranma,
>as opposed to say "Friends", is that Ranma came from the mind
>of a single individual without a team of highly paid comedy
>writers, focus groups, and a troupe of actors.
That, and that Ranma makes me laugh. Friends makes me, well, as close to bored
as I can get.
Red Bat
ALM wrote in message ...
>Anime, just because it is anime, is not art. Anime is animation is a
>medium. It is art if handled by people worthy of the title of artists;
>people who tell compelling and innovative stories with anime, or who
elevate
>the form of animation. If anime is poorly written, or just another by the
>numbers production to make money, it's no more art than your average crappy
>American sitcom or Hollywood idiot-fest.
I notice you don't say anything about this being your opinion, so I must
assume you are claiming this as absolute truth. If you are, you need to say
more than 'it just is'.
Anyway, if an anime is poorly written, in my book that makes it bad art, but
still art.
It's the same with American sitcoms or 'brainless' Hollywood films.
-Red Bat
Red Bat
>order to look smart. :P
>
>and the author instilling meaning into it- consciously or subconsciously.
>Of course, the latter would be rather hard to prove...
If I understand you correctly, I agree very much. The reader of a text (and
I don't mean just written texts) is, I think, often more involved in the
creation of meaning than the original author, but I don't see this as a bad
thing. The enormous amounts of ideas, feelings and thoughts that arise from
art are more interesting than trying to discover 'the true meaning' behind a
work, or the authors intentions.
-Red Bat
Chika
You can make the tape box into a hat, or a brooch, or... ^_^
--
----- Chika - miy...@argonet.co.uk IRCnet#anime MMW CAPOW ZFC/A
//\//
----- CrashnetUK - crashnet.org.uk (come.to/arena.essex)
... Life, don't talk to me about life.
Chika
wrote:
> Chika wrote
> > > Music, vocal performance, paintings, film- those are all components
> > > of anime. If each individually can be art, why can't anime?
> >
> > I guess that the only reason is that no two people seem to agree on
> > what "art" actually is.
> Well... I classify art as just some sort of audio or visual
> manifestation of creativity. It's an abstract word, and therefore
> requires an equally abstract definition. Whether something is positive
> or not varies from person to person, and that's why some of the shit
> (literally) you see out there is what other people classify as art.
Exactly, and it does prove the point. The well worn phrase that comes to
mind is "I don't know art, but I know what I like!" Certainly I don't
believe that anime should be called art just because it is anime, but
neither should it be belittled just because it is anime.
> As for anime, yes. It's art to me. I love it, it's creative at times,
> and I get much entertainment out of it. It's that simple.
And that is all that matters. Why analyse it to death?
--
----- Chika - miy...@argonet.co.uk IRCnet#anime MMW CAPOW ZFC/A
//\//
----- CrashnetUK - crashnet.org.uk (come.to/arena.essex)
... Profanity, the language programmers know.
Rob Kelk
>
>> I'm going to argue from analogy here. (Yes, I know that's dangerous,
>> but it serves the purpose in this case.) Many folks own cameras of
>> some sort, anything from use-once-then-throw-away cheapies to
>> single-lens reflex swappable-lens beauties. Most of the people who
>> own cameras use them to take photographs. Usually, these photos are
>> not "art"; they're simply records of visual events. However, some
>> people are quite capable of making photographic artworks, and there
>> are museums dedicated to showing this art form. (One of them, the
>> Canadain Museum of Contemporary Photography, is in my home city.) So,
>> is photography art? Yes and no.
>
>Not to sound like a troll, but I have a question for you.
>Do you consider portaiture painting to be art?
My answer to that one is "Usually, yes." Portaiture is created as an
artistic expression more often than it's created as a means of
identification, even if that expression is "this guy's wealthy enough
to get someone to paint his portait". (I never claimed that an
artistic expression had to have deep meaning...)
--
Rob Kelk http://robkelk.tripod.com/ rob...@ottawa.com
"I'm *not* a kid! Nyyyeaaah!" - Skuld (in "Oh My Goddess!" OAV #3)
"When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the fear of
childishness and the desire to be very grown-up." - C.S. Lewis, 1947
Rob Kelk
<snip>
>Now, if only, along with "'s Dracula" and "'s Frankenstien" we can get a Cambel
>Soup Can movie.
LOL!
(But is that Warhol piece "art"? 8-) )
Rob Kelk
wrote:
<snip>
>This brings to mind McCloud's definition of Art. Anything humans do that's not
>directly related to survival.
Which makes the entirety of rec.arts.anime.misc "art".
I'm not sure I like this definition... Let me think about it for a
while.
Arnold Kim
Rob Kelk <rob...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
news:3a23c673...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:44:48 -0800, DiPiCarat <rek...@sandwich.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >This brings to mind McCloud's definition of Art. Anything humans do
that's not
> >directly related to survival.
>
> Which makes the entirety of rec.arts.anime.misc "art".
>
> I'm not sure I like this definition... Let me think about it for a
> while.
Well, would professional sports be considered art? How about, say, the
study of animals? And would something done for convenience constitute
"survival"?
Hell, under that definition, professional wrestling is art, and I'm not sure
I like that...:P
Arnold Kim
Skeleton Man
"Arnold Kim" <ki...@erols.com> wrote in message
> Hell, under that definition, professional wrestling is art, and I'm not
sure
> I like that...:P
>
It is survival though... :)
--
Skeleton Man
http://users.lvcm.com/artfx
Seen Chaos yet?
DiPiCarat
>
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:44:48 -0800, DiPiCarat <rek...@sandwich.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >This brings to mind McCloud's definition of Art. Anything humans do that's not
> >directly related to survival.
>
> Which makes the entirety of rec.arts.anime.misc "art".
>
> I'm not sure I like this definition... Let me think about it for a
> while.
The nice thing about it is that it's devoid of qualitative properties. I might
extend it a bit to say that anything humans do that's not directly related to
survival or analytical observation (such as most of the sciences) would be art.
Essentially, art is any method in which humans express themselves.
But, yes, RAAM would be "art" by either of these definitions, so perhaps we
could remove a degree of normal human interaction as well.
> Rob Kelk http://robkelk.tripod.com/ rob...@ottawa.com
DiPiCarat
Arnold Kim
Red Bat <redb...@mimer.no> wrote in message
news:tQIU5.1452$Pe4.1...@juliett.dax.net...
Not quite. I think both the artist and the viewer play equal parts in this.
Sometimes a reader/viewer strives to find meaning in a work where it really
isn't there. A cigar is sometimes just a cigar, as they say.
At the same time, sometimes an artist presents his idea so abstractly that
it is virtually impossible for the message to get through to the reader. If
either the artist fails in this extent, or the viewer finds nonexistent
meaning, I don't think it can be considered good art.
Arnold Kim
ataruk...@my-deja.com
I disagree. The original creator is the most important interpreter of
a work and his or her views on a work are cannon.
> -Red Bat
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Louis Patterson
> Dyson wrote:
> >
> > Animation, and comics, are lumped together under the
> > heading of Sequential Art, and one should read Scott
> > McCloud's "Understanding Comics" for a much more in-depth
> > take on the subject. All you really have to do is exchange
> > the word 'comics' with the word 'anime' and it all applies
> > the same.
>
> This brings to mind McCloud's definition of Art. Anything humans do that's not
> directly related to survival.
So,if you're starving in the proverbial garret, you can't possibly be
an artist?
Louis
--
Louis Patterson l.patt...@student.unimelb.edu.au
Louis Patterson
> Gilles Poitras wrote:
> >
> > There is a thread called:
> > Anime presentation for school
> >
> > A lively discussion of the merits of anime as art has started there.
> >
> > As that is a bit of a topic drift I am starting a new thread here.
> >
> > If you are interested please read that discussion and post here.
> >
>
> There's a really simple answer.
>
> It's as much art as *any* (and I mean any) other medium of expression,
> be it music, other animation/TV/movies (live action or not), painting,
> sculpting, archetecture, writing, or what have you.
>
> And thus, anime isn't any more art than other animation, or whatnot...
And rather more to the point, no less...
Louis Patterson
"And, rather more to the point, no less...". Sometimes a missing comma
can kill you...
Dyson
SonofWashu wrote:
>> Okay, I'll say 'most' anime, as I'm still trying
>> to figure out what "Roots Search" tried to convey. ;)
>
>
> What the heck is "Roots Search" or should I avoid asking?
It was one of the very early CPM releases, and one of the
worst anime titles ever unleashed upon the west. The plot
was something out of a 50s B-movie about an alien brain
(IIRC) that claims to be God and tries to kill everyone on
a psychic research station somewhere in deep space. Imagine
a cross between "Alien", "The Brain from Arous", and "Red
Planet Mars". It's excruciatingly derivative, and deathly
dull. Watch at risk of mental health damage.
Dyson
Chika wrote:
> In article <8vv8fc$men$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> Arnold Kim <ki...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> challenges anyone to find the artistic value in MD Geist...
>
>
> You can make the tape box into a hat, or a brooch, or... ^_^
Or a pteradactyl. *squroar, squroar, flap, flap*
(had to finish the reference. :)
Red Bat
>a work and his or her views on a work are cannon.
Then we disagree. Cool :).
-Red Bat
Red Bat
this.
>Sometimes a reader/viewer strives to find meaning in a work where it really
>isn't there. A cigar is sometimes just a cigar, as they say.
I don't mean to say that the authors role is nonexistant, as I forgot to add
that I also find the similarities of interpretation very interesting. Let's
take the films of David Lynch for example. He has said in numerous
interviews that he doesn't always understand his creations until years
later. Sometimes things are pointed out by fans or critics. If he already
knew exactly what he wanted to say, he should have written a book (words are
strongly coded compared to images) and told the world.
>At the same time, sometimes an artist presents his idea so abstractly that
>it is virtually impossible for the message to get through to the reader.
If
>either the artist fails in this extent, or the viewer finds nonexistent
>meaning, I don't think it can be considered good art.
I guess this is where we disagree the most. Nonexistent meaning doesn't
exist in my book. It had to come from somewhere and whether if comes from
the author or the reader doesn't matter. It's important to have an author
point the way, but the little details and opinions should come from the
reader.
Most people who see Evangelion, agree on some things, but when it comes to
the characters there is always strong disagreement. People may agree that
Shinji is introverted and has problems dealing with other people, but
whether people like/emphathize/identify with Shinji is strongly based on
themselves.
I realize this example is pretty silly, mostly since the character part of
Evangelion is pretty pushed and not very hidden, but it might serve its
purpose anyway: Although there are huge similarities in the direction we
read a text, the fine print will still be up to the individual.
I agree with you in that people who look for meaning where there is
*absolutely none* is pointless. The author is still very important, if only
to point in a specific direction.
Hmmm...hope this all makes sense...I'm very tired..
-Red Bat
Chika
> Or a pteradactyl. *squroar, squroar, flap, flap*
> (had to finish the reference. :)
Thanx! Saves me having to watch the film again to find it! Though having
said that...
Heck of a time to give up smoking... :)
--
----- Chika - miy...@argonet.co.uk IRCnet#anime MMW CAPOW ZFC/A
//\//
----- CrashnetUK - crashnet.org.uk (come.to/arena.essex)
... If flies couldn't fly, would they be called walks?
Ruslan Zenin
> There is a thread called:
> Anime presentation for school
>
> A lively discussion of the merits of anime as art has started there.
>
> As that is a bit of a topic drift I am starting a new thread here.
>
> If you are interested please read that discussion and post here.
>
> --
> Gilles Poitras
> Obsession: Anime
> Profession: Librarian
> http://www.sirius.com/~cowpunk/
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
>
> >At the same time, sometimes an artist presents his idea so abstractly that
> >it is virtually impossible for the message to get through to the reader.
> If
> >either the artist fails in this extent, or the viewer finds nonexistent
> >meaning, I don't think it can be considered good art.
>
>
> I guess this is where we disagree the most. Nonexistent meaning doesn't
> exist in my book. It had to come from somewhere and whether if comes from
> the author or the reader doesn't matter. It's important to have an author
> point the way, but the little details and opinions should come from the
> reader.
> Most people who see Evangelion, agree on some things, but when it comes to
> the characters there is always strong disagreement. People may agree that
> Shinji is introverted and has problems dealing with other people, but
> whether people like/emphathize/identify with Shinji is strongly based on
> themselves.
> I realize this example is pretty silly, mostly since the character part of
> Evangelion is pretty pushed and not very hidden, but it might serve its
> purpose anyway: Although there are huge similarities in the direction we
> read a text, the fine print will still be up to the individual.
>
> I agree with you in that people who look for meaning where there is
> *absolutely none* is pointless. The author is still very important, if only
> to point in a specific direction.
>
I kinda agree. My English classes tended to side
on reader-side interpretation than author-side.
That means that, as long as we can back it up,
we can provide our own interpretations to a piece of work,
even if it's not what the author originally intended.
People's interpretations are shaped by their own personal experiences,
so the same one thing can mean differently to different people.
For instance, based on his own experience, the author wrote something
which he intended to elicit a specific reaction or thought
- but the reader, based on his own different experience,
interprets it another way that makes sense to him
("makes sense" as in he could back it up based on the other texts).
This could lead to many interesting interpretations,
like in answering such questions as:
"why did the character do what he did?"
The author has his reason, but the reader's reason may be different,
as long as he can back it up.
You brought up Eva, which has an interesting question:
"who killed Kaji and why?"
Many fans have their own interpretations which,
as long as present circumstances (i.e. what's in the anime now)
don't preclude the possibilities, can be as valid as the author's.
Laters. =)
Stan
--
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ Stanlee Dometita sta...@www.cif.rochester.edu
| ( _| | U of Rochester www.cif.rochester.edu/~stanlee
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/___ |__| |__|___| \ ___|
DiPiCarat
>
> I kinda agree. My English classes tended to side
> on reader-side interpretation than author-side.
> That means that, as long as we can back it up,
> we can provide our own interpretations to a piece of work,
> even if it's not what the author originally intended.
> People's interpretations are shaped by their own personal experiences,
> so the same one thing can mean differently to different people.
My creative writing classes to date have often supported reader-side. I remember
one anecdote about an author at a party who was approached by another partygoer.
This person gushed on about the author's recent novel (or story) and said how he
loved the symbolism and what it meant. The author smiled, nodded, and said
that's exactly what he meant.
A little while later, another guest approached the author and gushed on about
the same novel/story... yet this person had a different viewpoint... in fact one
that was almost opposite that of the first person. Still, the author smiled,
nodded, and said that's exactly what he meant.
The author's wife had overheard both exchanges, and got angry at him because of
it, accusing him of lying and demanding he say which way he had meant the story.
I think the author replied with something along the lines of "both, neither...
does it matter?"
And, as a related thought, my creative writing teacher said that nothing makes
him happier than a reading giving him an entirely different interpretation of
one of his stories than he had thought of.
> Stan
Louis Patterson
That means then, that the ERC library, here in melbourne Uni, holds three
of the lead challengers for "worst anime released in the west", in Roots
Search, Odin:PSSS, and MD Geist. On laserdisk. Eughhh...
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>In article <3A24A225...@usa.net>,
> Dyson <lo-...@usa.net> wrote:
>> > You can make the tape box into a hat, or a brooch, or... ^_^
>
>> Or a pteradactyl. *squroar, squroar, flap, flap*
>
>> (had to finish the reference. :)
>
>Thanx! Saves me having to watch the film again to find it! Though having
>said that...
>
>Heck of a time to give up smoking... :)
And I'll never be over Mucho Grande.
(BTW, is this film "art"? ^_^)
--
Chika
Rob Kelk <rob...@ottawa.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:32:07 +0000 (GMT), Chika <miy...@argonet.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >In article <3A24A225...@usa.net>,
> > Dyson <lo-...@usa.net> wrote:
> >> > You can make the tape box into a hat, or a brooch, or... ^_^
> >
> >> Or a pteradactyl. *squroar, squroar, flap, flap*
> >
> >> (had to finish the reference. :)
> >
> >Thanx! Saves me having to watch the film again to find it! Though having
> >said that...
> >
> >Heck of a time to give up smoking... :)
> And I'll never be over Mucho Grande.
> (BTW, is this film "art"? ^_^)
Surely you can't be serious! ^_^
--
----- Chika - miy...@argonet.co.uk IRCnet#anime MMW CAPOW ZFC/A
//\//
----- CrashnetUK - crashnet.org.uk (come.to/arena.essex)
... Apple: "I know! Let's call it the Raincoat."
DiPiCarat
>
> >Surely you can't be serious! ^_^
>
Fine, Sirius.
> Rob Kelk http://robkelk.tripod.com/ rob...@ottawa.com
DiPiCarat
Rob Kelk
wrote:
>In article <3a266380...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> Rob Kelk <rob...@ottawa.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:32:07 +0000 (GMT), Chika <miy...@argonet.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>> >In article <3A24A225...@usa.net>,
>> > Dyson <lo-...@usa.net> wrote:
>> >> > You can make the tape box into a hat, or a brooch, or... ^_^
>> >
>> >> Or a pteradactyl. *squroar, squroar, flap, flap*
>> >
>> >> (had to finish the reference. :)
>> >
>> >Thanx! Saves me having to watch the film again to find it! Though having
>> >said that...
>> >
>> >Heck of a time to give up smoking... :)
>
>> And I'll never be over Mucho Grande.
>
>> (BTW, is this film "art"? ^_^)
>
>Surely you can't be serious! ^_^
I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.
--