Just another form of entertainment?
Edgar Jimenez
I have been thinking about the way thatt people that sees anime is
considered in society. Someones call us "geeks" or "otakus" (this is not
something to be proud), an the question arises is anime a valid form of
entertainment? or is something ""extrange"? I do not know the answer, the
only thing that I know is I like watching anime! and there are others who
share my hobby (or obssesion).
Maybe anime is only another form of entertainment (like the movies) and
only difer in the way that is seen. Someone think that is only for kids,
another one for perverts (Animerica discussed this topic in back issues),
and someone see like a genre equal to filmography or even better.
Maybe the only thing that distinguish between anime and other forms of
expression is the way that uses for expressing his "message": animation.
But, Disney, Hanna Barbera do the same, and that is NOT anime some people
say, but that is the esence of anime. Could be that anime represent
something that we do not see in these cartoons or even in pictures, maybe
has his own language, form of expression that is very appealing.
But the final decision about if anime is "good" or ad" depends of the
person who watches it.
Tom Ford
> Someones call us "geeks" or "otakus" (this is not something to be proud)
I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, either. These terms are
generally use in a derogatory sense by people who are so narrow-minded
that they cannot appreciate other people have tastes which differ from
them or the mainstream. I might be called a geek for watching anime,
being a programmer or a physicist. Does this bother me? No.
> Maybe anime is only another form of entertainment (like the movies) and
It's another way of telling a story, like a book or a film. Anime seems to
give the designers quite a lot of freedom in what they do and this has
permeated the storylines so that they are quite deep and, some, unusual.
The art, I'm sure, also appeals to most anime-watchers as perhaps a decent
classical art gallery appeals to others.
Flend
Arnold Kim
>
> I have been thinking about the way thatt people that sees anime is
> considered in society. Someones call us "geeks" or "otakus" (this is not
> something to be proud), an the question arises is anime a valid form of
> entertainment? or is something ""extrange"? I do not know the answer, the
> only thing that I know is I like watching anime! and there are others who
> share my hobby (or obssesion).
Of course anime is a valid form of entertainment. Anime is a medium that
tells a lot of different stories, just like TV, film, or books. You cannot
pigeonhole anime as to saying it only has a certain type of content to it.
Anyone who says that anime is not a valid form of entertainment is just
being ignorant. If you take away the sterotypes in a person's mind, it can
entertain as successfuly and with equal range as any other medium.
Arnold Kim
entertained by anime
Antaeus Feldspar
> Edgar Jimenez <al77...@academ01.mty.itesm.mx> writes:
>
> > Someones call us "geeks" or "otakus" (this is not something to be proud)
>
> I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, either. These terms are
> generally use in a derogatory sense by people who are so narrow-minded
> that they cannot appreciate other people have tastes which differ from
> them or the mainstream. I might be called a geek for watching anime,
> being a programmer or a physicist. Does this bother me? No.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that more people now use
"computer geek" as a positive term than still use it as an insult.
There's also the whole trend of "geek culture," where people have
re-defined the term to describe the reality rather than the stereotype.
I myself like to use "geek" as a verb, emphasizing the active rather
than passive nature of geekdom; to "geek" something is to take a deep
intellectual interest in it. Thus, if you not only watch anime but
enjoy discussing which anime may have influenced other anime, what
Evangelion really means, et cetera, you can claim to "geek" anime.
> > Maybe anime is only another form of entertainment (like the movies) and
>
> It's another way of telling a story, like a book or a film. Anime seems to
> give the designers quite a lot of freedom in what they do and this has
> permeated the storylines so that they are quite deep and, some, unusual.
>
> The art, I'm sure, also appeals to most anime-watchers as perhaps a decent
> classical art gallery appeals to others.
>
> Flend
I would agree; there have been innumerable shifts in the history
of aesthetics in the West, where in one generation the sensual
experience is all, and in the next, the content of the work is supposed
to be the only thing you can appreciate and still be 'mature.' But most
of the people who have their head on straight can and do appreciate
both.
-jc
--
* -jc IS *NOW* feld...@cryogen.com
* Home page: http://members.tripod.com/~afeldspar/index.html
* The home of >>Failed Pilots Playhouse<<
* "Better you hold me close than understand..." Thomas Dolby
Bram
> "computer geek" as a positive term than still use it as an insult.
> There's also the whole trend of "geek culture," where people have
> re-defined the term to describe the reality rather than the stereotype.
> I myself like to use "geek" as a verb, emphasizing the active rather
> than passive nature of geekdom; to "geek" something is to take a deep
> intellectual interest in it. Thus, if you not only watch anime but
> enjoy discussing which anime may have influenced other anime, what
> Evangelion really means, et cetera, you can claim to "geek" anime.
....and aren't aware about anything else in life but anime. Gez, no wonder
we're called "geeks".
Antaeus Feldspar
Thank you, troll. Crawl back under your rock, wouldja? you're
not interesting.
Greene
>
> Hello. I am afraid that I must disagree with virtually everything that has
> been said by everyone.
Wow...I guess that makes it easier for you to stand out, huh?
> Years of demographic studies--or a few hours of observing
> teenagers--support the conclusion that a widespread cultural audience will
> accept almost any level of artistic quality, provided it masquerades as
> representing their shared societal experience, or provides even the simplest
> escape routes from it.
Years of studies also show that teenagers have short attention spans
DIRECTLY related to watching TV shows and playing video games...does
that make it a fact? Nope.
> In other words, many people may be entertained by anime. But in no way does
> that justify classification of the genre as somehow inherently groundbreaking
> or successful.
Then what justifies something as being groundbreaking or successful? I
thought it was A)Being unique (if anime wasn't unique we wouldn't be
able to sterotype it now...would we?) and B) Making money. It's safe to
say that anime satisfies both of these in spades, and it continues to
grow.
> Someones call us "geeks" or "otakus" (this is not something to be proud)
Well...I could call you a monkey eating goat. If you take it personally
you are a fool...some of us have better things to do than be worried
about "name calling" (this isn't the 3rd grade anymore)...we watch anime
because we like it. Who cares what other people say?
> > I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, either. These terms are
> > generally use in a derogatory sense by people who are so narrowminded
> > that they cannot appreciate other people have tastes which differ from
> > them or the mainstream. I might be called a geek for watching anime,
> > being a programmer or a physicist. Does this bother me? No.
>
> It definitely *is* something to be ashamed of. The sense of marginalization it
> is supposed to produce in you: that is not to be ashamed of, or tolerated.
OR it is something to be proud of...that you can believe in something
enough to be able to turn your head at name calling without even getting
a mild rise.
> The difficulty stems from the labelled assuming
> that since they dislike aspects of the existence the labeller stands for (or at
> least within)
You know what they say: Good writers can write on a level that is easily
understandable to highly intelligent readers. Great writers can write on
a level that is easily understandable to everyone. Think about it.
> When you call yourself "geek" or "otaku" you are saying you are proud
> to be a deviant recluse incapable of personal warmth or intelligent
> conversation.
Literally, by calling yourself an otaku in Japan and America you are
saying that you are an "obsessive fan". It's up to society to add
different associations onto it such as "being incapable of personal
warmth" or "intelligent conversation." Since anime fans have decided IN
AMERICA that "otaku" IS a compliment rather than an insult it looks like
your associations have no bearing or meaning to the interpretation of
the word. Sorry.
> My name is Christian Smith. I welcome your comments.
Christian...I once knew a GEEK named Christian (judging by your logic
you should automatically feel incredibly ashamed and insulted at that
remark...do you? I suggest you rethink this).
- D'Ary
LyabiBrave
because they are mostly just plain wrong.
First, "anime" is not a medium. "Animation" is a medium; "anime" is a genre.
Admittedly, almost no one uses it in this way. Most American fans use it to
mean "Japanese animation" and indeed that is the way some Jap media outlets
like Newtype utilize the term. But that is not how the American fans really
*mean* it. Otherwise, they would never make sweeping generalizations regarding
"anime" since such a diffuse topic would invariably not be correctly summed by
any statement (except, of course, "Most of it is devoid of merit.").
"Anyone who says that anime is not a valid form of entertainment is just being
ignorant. If you take away the sterotypes in a person's mind, it can entertain
as successfuly and with equal range as any other medium."
Again, no. When was the last time you saw a magical realist anime? Or Romantic
(as in the art movement, not the generic adjective)? Better yet, how about a
Fauvist anime? Fluxus? No, I didn't think so. These are all, I suppose,
possibilities, but the general market trend and the forces of mainstream
success which control anime conspire to reduce it all to middle-of-the-road
pablum. With great, though not quite total, success.
We're talking exclusively about the range of anime here, and not the
entertainment factor. Years of demographic studies--or a few hours of observing
teenagers--support the conclusion that a widespread cultural audience will
accept almost any level of artistic quality, provided it masquerades as
representing their shared societal experience, or provides even the simplest
escape routes from it.
In other words, many people may be entertained by anime. But in no way does
that justify classification of the genre as somehow inherently groundbreaking
or successful.
Someones call us "geeks" or "otakus" (this is not something to be proud)
>
> I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, either. These terms are
> generally use in a derogatory sense by people who are so narrowminded
> that they cannot appreciate other people have tastes which differ from
> them or the mainstream. I might be called a geek for watching anime,
> being a programmer or a physicist. Does this bother me? No.
It definitely *is* something to be ashamed of. The sense of marginalization it
is supposed to produce in you: that is not to be ashamed of, or tolerated.
"Anime geek" and its specifically Japanese form "otaku" are terms of derision
meant to distance the speaker from the labelled. This is a human endeavor, and
not the source of the problem. The difficulty stems from the labelled assuming
that since they dislike aspects of the existence the labeller stands for (or at
least within), they should take on the iconic label as a badge of honor.
Nothing could be more unintelligent.
Since most words of opprobrium contain very basic tropes of unacceptability,
they should be examined before being wholeheartedly embraced (or rejected).
"Otaku" carries more weight than just "this person likes anime." It also means
"...and very little else, including normal human interaction or untrammeled
reality." When you call yourself "geek" or "otaku" you are saying you are proud
to be a deviant recluse incapable of personal warmth or intelligent
conversation.
Finally, "geek" cannot be used as a synonym for "deeply ponder." For one, it
is too close a neologism to the identical-meaning "grok." Second, it already
has use as a verb (and noun) for those wacky circus performers.
Third, it's just plain stupid; a feeble, transparent attempt to co-opt a label
whose unflattering connotations hit too close to home.
Thank you for your time.
My name is Christian Smith. I welcome your comments.
lyabi...@aol.com
"I just want people to see my action heart."
Pedro Colman-Arrellaga
> Hello. I am afraid that I must disagree with virtually everything that has
>been said by everyone. And not just because I have a different opinion, but
>because they are mostly just plain wrong.
At least you've shown up to tell us the truth.
> First, "anime" is not a medium. "Animation" is a medium; "anime" is a genre.
>Admittedly, almost no one uses it in this way. Most American fans use it to
>mean "Japanese animation" and indeed that is the way some Jap media outlets
>like Newtype utilize the term. But that is not how the American fans really
>*mean* it. Otherwise, they would never make sweeping generalizations regarding
>"anime" since such a diffuse topic would invariably not be correctly summed by
>any statement (except, of course, "Most of it is devoid of merit.").
How is anime a genre? The term is used in Japan to cover all
animation, not just that made in Japan. Anime itself contains various
genre. As for "sweeping generaliztions" made by American fans of
anime, people in general are constantly making generalizations. (See,
just did it myself) Generalizations make life simpler; whether or not
you agree with the generalizations made about anime, (I for one
usually don't.) they will still be made, however right or wrong they
may be.
> "Anyone who says that anime is not a valid form of entertainment is just being
>ignorant. If you take away the sterotypes in a person's mind, it can entertain
>as successfuly and with equal range as any other medium."
>
> Again, no. When was the last time you saw a magical realist anime? Or Romantic
>(as in the art movement, not the generic adjective)? Better yet, how about a
>Fauvist anime? Fluxus? No, I didn't think so. These are all, I suppose,
>possibilities, but the general market trend and the forces of mainstream
>success which control anime conspire to reduce it all to middle-of-the-road
>pablum. With great, though not quite total, success.
When was the last time you saw anything Fauvist outside of an art
museum? Anime is Japanese pop culture. With some exceptions it has to
appeal its audience to be succesful. I thought that was a given. These
are not limitations of the format, they are limitations of the target
audience. Occasionally there are exceptions. Angel's Egg and kenji's
Spring are 2 anime I know of that don't fit this mold.
> We're talking exclusively about the range of anime here, and not the
>entertainment factor. Years of demographic studies--or a few hours of observing
>teenagers--support the conclusion that a widespread cultural audience will
>accept almost any level of artistic quality, provided it masquerades as
>representing their shared societal experience, or provides even the simplest
>escape routes from it.
And this means? Is it impossible for it to be of any worth because it
also appeals to a larger audience?
> In other words, many people may be entertained by anime. But in no way does
>that justify classification of the genre as somehow inherently groundbreaking
>or successful.
Yet another paradigm shattering statement. Really now, don't you tire
of stating the obvious?
>Someones call us "geeks" or "otakus" (this is not something to be proud)
>>
>> I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, either. These terms are
>> generally use in a derogatory sense by people who are so narrowminded
>> that they cannot appreciate other people have tastes which differ from
>> them or the mainstream. I might be called a geek for watching anime,
>> being a programmer or a physicist. Does this bother me? No.
>
> It definitely *is* something to be ashamed of. The sense of marginalization it
>is supposed to produce in you: that is not to be ashamed of, or tolerated.
>"Anime geek" and its specifically Japanese form "otaku" are terms of derision
>meant to distance the speaker from the labelled. This is a human endeavor, and
>not the source of the problem. The difficulty stems from the labelled assuming
>that since they dislike aspects of the existence the labeller stands for (or at
>least within), they should take on the iconic label as a badge of honor.
>Nothing could be more unintelligent.
You used the term Fauvism earlier, presumably to speak of a group of
French painters from the first decade of this century, notably Matisse
among them. Seeing as how fauve means "beast" and was used
disparingingly at the time, should they not have felt great shame at
being labeled as such?
> Since most words of opprobrium contain very basic tropes of unacceptability,
>they should be examined before being wholeheartedly embraced (or rejected).
>"Otaku" carries more weight than just "this person likes anime." It also means
>"...and very little else, including normal human interaction or untrammeled
>reality." When you call yourself "geek" or "otaku" you are saying you are proud
>to be a deviant recluse incapable of personal warmth or intelligent
>conversation.
Well thanks for telling us what it means. Personally I use neither
term, mainly out of disgust for labels in general, but many terms
change meaning over time. How else does this change occur if people
never use a term to mean something else.
> Finally, "geek" cannot be used as a synonym for "deeply ponder." For one, it
>is too close a neologism to the identical-meaning "grok." Second, it already
>has use as a verb (and noun) for those wacky circus performers.
Actually, I sort of agree with this, mainly because "grok" was already
around and had the same meaning, but people will use whatever term
they wish, regardless.
> Third, it's just plain stupid; a feeble, transparent attempt to co-opt a label
>whose unflattering connotations hit too close to home.
Sure, whatever you say. And the person doing the insulting is always
right, I assume.
> Thank you for your time.
>My name is Christian Smith. I welcome your comments.
Do you know that using as many obscure words in one sentence as
possible does nothing for comprehension of what you write?
Opprobium and tropes in the same sentence? I doubt I'll ever see that
again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Colman-Arréllaga | Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so
hiss...@cris.com | many more believers than thinkers.
hiss...@concentric.net | - Bruce Calvert
------------------------|
| Do I contradict myself?
"The Typhoid Mary of | Very well then, I contradict myself,
the shipping business" | (I am large, I contain multitudes).
| - Walt Whitman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LyabiBrave
following comments made by D'Ary:
"Years of studies also show that teenagers have short attention spans
DIRECTLY related to watching TV shows and playing video games...does
that make it a fact? Nope."
It doesn't make it untrue either; studies indicate the results of observation,
they don't themselves create the phenomenon. This is hardly a rebuttal, merely
a statement that you don't happen to agree with the principle of induction.
While obviously I can't argue you out of that position, I will state that if
you're willing to accept that any common ground exists between two
temporal/spatial states, then my comment that studies show people like crap is
perfectly justifiable--and correct.
"Then what justifies something as being groundbreaking or successful? I
thought it was A)Being unique (if anime wasn't unique we wouldn't be
able to sterotype it now...would we?) and B) Making money. It's safe to
say that anime satisfies both of these in spades, and it continues to
grow."
Admittedly, I should have said "artistically successful" so that money-making
was specifically excluded. As for the statement that anime is unique: NO.
First, it is in fact *easier* to stereotype something that isn't unique; the
very process of stereotyping ensures that. And second, it is not "safe to say"
that anime is unique. If you take "unique" only to mean "not made elsewhere"
then of course you are correct. But that's not the focus of my point. Please
note I did not use the term unique at all; I said anime wasn't ground-breaking.
That's a very different concept, susceptible to objective analysis. Which will
show you that like almost all popular artforms, anime is full of reiterated
cliches and dumbed-down "ideas."
"You know what they say: Good writers can write on a level that is easily
understandable to highly intelligent readers. Great writers can write on
a level that is easily understandable to everyone. Think about it."
Despite the fact that this little homily occurs utterly out of context to what
you are supposedly responding to, I'll address it anyway. Two paragraphs
earlier you were claiming that it is a show of personal freedom and
intellectual capacity to ignore the comments of some hypothetical "them." Now,
of course, I am supposed to recant my position not because YOU can come up with
an actual defense, but because some authority figure has told me to. Please try
to be more consistent.
Assuming that this good/great writer difference holds, what is your point? You
have fallen into a very simple error; let me elucidate. The syllogism you
implicitly present is:
1. All great writers can be understood by everyone.
2. Anime can be understood by everyone.
[imagine a tri-dot here] Therefore, all anime is by great writers.
Do you see the fallacy now? This is the same as saying:
1. All dogs are mammals.
2. A cat is a mammal.
[same] Therefore, a cat is a dog.
Perhaps I've missed your point and this isn't what you were saying. I
apologize, but you didn't provide much in the way of explanation so I had to
guess.
"Christian...I once knew a GEEK named Christian (judging by your logic
you should automatically feel incredibly ashamed and insulted at that
remark...do you? I suggest you rethink this)."
My logic, in fact, says no such thing. Barring whether anything you could say
would have any impact on my self-esteem, let's just look at what I actually
said, okay? Here's a quote from me:"The sense of marginalization it is supposed
to produce in you: that is not to be ashamed of, or tolerated." This is, I
admit, not very clear, and I apologize. But what I'm saying is that allowing
yourself to be marginalized by a label is wrong;I think we agree here. I also
think that grabbing onto that label as if it were something positive is *also*
wrong. You evidently disagree, but offer no support for your position. I did.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I have rethought this, as well as many other
topics. I will rethink it again when I am actually presented with new
information, which you did not do.
Now on to comments about me by Pedro Colma-Arrellaga. Here goes:
"How is anime a genre? The term is used in Japan to cover all
animation, not just that made in Japan. Anime itself contains various
genre."
As used in Japan, the term may be a medium, but that is hardly how Americans
use it. Is Lady and The Tramp anime? How many "otaku" would support that
statement? I will admit, however, that I should have pointed out I was talking
about American use. Though I personally have never seen the Japanese refer to
the Lion King as "Disney anime," perhaps they do.
"As for "sweeping generaliztions" made by American fans of
anime, people in general are constantly making generalizations. (See,
just did it myself) Generalizations make life simpler; whether or not
you agree with the generalizations made about anime, (I for one
usually don't.) they will still be made, however right or wrong they
may be."
These sentences are tautological in construction and have virtually no content
whatsoever.
"When was the last time you saw anything Fauvist outside of an art
museum? Anime is Japanese pop culture. With some exceptions it has to
appeal its audience to be succesful. I thought that was a given. These
are not limitations of the format, they are limitations of the target
audience. Occasionally there are exceptions. Angel's Egg and kenji's
Spring are 2 anime I know of that don't fit this mold."
Try picking up Factsheet Five sometime...there are 'zines in there that are
Fauvist in content and intent, even though they don't use that term. I do agree
that anime is Jap pop culture, with one further narrowing: it is Japanese
teenager pop culture. The vast majority of Japanese adults don't watch or care
about anime.
If the format (with a few exceptions) must appeal to the audience, then how is
the format itself not limited? If you want to blame the Japanese (and recently,
the American) anime audiences for the lack of innovative content, go right
ahead. I completely agree with you on that one. It's just not a point I
bothered to bring up; I was not laying blame, just analyzing the state of the
(bad) art.
The exceptions are *very* occasional, and have been getting more so steadily
as the market becomes increasingly insular.
"And this means? Is it impossible for it to be of any worth because it
also appeals to a larger audience?"
Of course not. What I had said that caused this comment was merely that
mainstream acceptance is very, very easy, and doesn't *require* quality. I then
went on to say that anime doesn't *have* much, but this is a separate point
entirely.
"Yet another paradigm shattering statement. Really now, don't you tire
of stating the obvious?"
I agree with you that what I said ("In other words, many people may be
entertained by anime. But in no way does that justify classification of the
genre as somehow inherently groundbreaking or successful.") is obvious. But I
said it anyway because so few others agree. D'Ary, for example, argued against
this very statement. Many other fans I've met also would, and so I reiterated
it to make sure my position and--as you say--glaringly obvious support for it
were on display.
"You used the term Fauvism earlier, presumably to speak of a group of
French painters from the first decade of this century, notably Matisse
among them. Seeing as how fauve means "beast" and was used
disparingingly at the time, should they not have felt great shame at
being labeled as such?"
Yeah, presumably, since that's the only real use of the term in English. And
no, they should not have felt shame because they specifically were seeking to
cultivate those traits that the art establishment were "smearing" them with.
Matisse et al. *wanted* to be regarded as wild beasts who were "aggressively
brutal" or "uncivilized and careless." So they embraced the term because it
summoned up the image they wanted to apply to themselves.
By contrast, "geeks" and "otakus" do not want to be associated with the
negative characteristics that conjures in the average mind. They just want to
use the word, and pretend it means something else. Now, I am the first to admit
that language is what its users say. But why bother trying to rearrange
semantic structure when you can avoid that, and achieve instant communicatory
ease, by saying "I'm not a geek. I'm an individual?"
I'll tell you why: because people who are proud of "geekdom" are just as
prejudiced as the "mundane" people they revile. They want their own little fan
club, discrete from the outside world and available only to other "geeks" who
fit their cool outsider image of themselves. If they were truly smart and
inclusive, then there would be no need for specialized jargon in their
discourse.
Please note that this little analysis of psychological motives is only meant
to extend to people who say they are "proud to be a geek!" Not everyone who has
ever been called a geek--and not even everyone who *is* one--have this need for
autonomous conformity.
"Do you know that using as many obscure words in one sentence as
possible does nothing for comprehension of what you write?
Opprobium and tropes in the same sentence? I doubt I'll ever see that
again."
I use precise words, ones germane to the task at hand. Since English is a
richly complected mess, it allows for more, and subtler, shades of meaning. I
don't think that utilizing the correct words in a sentence makes it more
difficult to comprehend; just more difficult to read, which is hardly the same.
I'm sorry I made you work; perhaps, like anime, I should just cave in to the
audience's pressure for reduced complexity and depth.
If you actually, seriously doubt you'll ever see "opprobrium" and "tropes" in
the same sentence again, maybe your reading selections are too narrow. Besides,
novelty (in the linguistic sense) is a basic function of humanity's deep
grammatical structure.
In sum, it seems that the reactions to my statements spent a great deal of
time dissecting *how* I said things. Both commentators disagreed with my
conclusions, but neither offered any cogent rebuttal of them. In fact, very
little was done to contradict even the most minor of my support. Primary focus
was given to the fact that the way I talk was onerous or irritating; my basic
point that "anime is mostly stupid" emerged without real opposition.
I'm still waiting for it.
And I don't mean "Oh yeah? Well you're a big dummy!"
At this juncture, let me add the corollary that "anime fans are mostly
stupid."
My name is Christian Smith. I welcome your comments.
andrew osmond
> Hello. I am afraid that I must disagree with virtually everything that
>has
>been said by everyone. And not just because I have a different opinion, but
>because they are mostly just plain wrong.
> First, "anime" is not a medium. "Animation" is a medium; "anime" is a
>genre.
Wrong, wrong, ludicrously and hopelessly wrong. If Nausicaa, Overfield,
KOR and Barefoot Gen are in the same genre, I'm a phallic tentacle.
>Admittedly, almost no one uses it in this way. Most American fans use it to
>mean "Japanese animation" and indeed that is the way some Jap media outlets
>like Newtype utilize the term. But that is not how the American fans really
>*mean* it. Otherwise, they would never make sweeping generalizations regarding
>"anime" since such a diffuse topic would invariably not be correctly summed by
>any statement (except, of course, "Most of it is devoid of merit.").
Which fans? In my experience, the only fans who make such
generalisations about anime (or, more often, 'manga cartoons') are
precisely those who've only seen one genre, such as urban SF actionfests
a la Akira, or demon porn a la Overfiend.
Whoops, I'm generalising, but then so are you.
>
> When was the last time you saw a magical realist anime?
Magic realism is a contentious category (Terry Pratchett once called it,
'Fantasy by someone who went to the critic's university.') Referring to
the Encyclopedia of Fantasy, a suggested definition is '[a work which]
subjects its various subjects to manipulations that make the fictional
seem true, the historical seem imagined; but always within an ultimate
frame that acknowledges the ongoing world (John Clute).'
I'd suggest both Kenji's Spring and Whisper of the Heart as candidates:
any others?
> These are all, I suppose,
>possibilities, but the general market trend and the forces of mainstream
>success which control anime conspire to reduce it all to middle-of-the-road
>pablum.
Isn't that just Sturgeon's Law?
(derogatory labels)
> The difficulty stems from the labelled assuming
>that since they dislike aspects of the existence the labeller stands for (or at
>least within), they should take on the iconic label as a badge of honor.
>Nothing could be more unintelligent.
> Since most words of opprobrium contain very basic tropes of
>unacceptability,
>they should be examined before being wholeheartedly embraced (or rejected).
>"Otaku" carries more weight than just "this person likes anime." It also means
>"...and very little else, including normal human interaction or untrammeled
>reality." When you call yourself "geek" or "otaku" you are saying you are proud
>to be a deviant recluse incapable of personal warmth or intelligent
>conversation.
That's excluding the possibility that you're redefining the word,
ridding it of the connotations imposed by (in your view) boors and
bigots. I believe the chequered history of 'queer' will bear this out.
> it's just plain stupid; a feeble, transparent attempt to co-opt a
>label
>whose unflattering connotations hit too close to home.
Again, see 'queer.'
> I welcome your comments.
I thought your post was one of the most fatuous ego-trips I've seen for
a long time. Better luck in the future.
--
andrew osmond
LyabiBrave
connotations were derived from the actual root meaning of the word and not
societal application. Many of the "oppressive" words for homosexuals (including
"homosexual" itself) started as descriptive terms. See Boswell for more.
As far as KOR/Nausicaa/Barefoot Gen not being in the same genre, that's true
for the usual use of the term. But "anime" is almost always used in a more
restrictive manner than other types of medium, such as "painting" or even
"gouache."
Terry Pratchett doesn't know what he's talking about, but John Clute does. And
yes, on second thought some anime veers into this territory, though without the
usual "historical seeming imagined" aspect.
Whether it's Sturgeon's Law or not, the question is whether it's true.
How was this an ego-trip? Did I ever say, "Worship me!" Or imply it? And even
if it was an ego trip, exactly how does that affect the veracity of my
statements? Like most respondents, you spend more time analyzing me and my
objectives than you do actually confronting my points. For example, if magical
realist anime does exist, is this a primary flaw that brings down the whole
structure of what I said?
Your comments were more "fatuous" than mine...I mean, if you bother using the
word correctly.
Pedro Colman-Arrellaga
> As used in Japan, the term may be a medium, but that is hardly how Americans
>use it. Is Lady and The Tramp anime? How many "otaku" would support that
>statement? I will admit, however, that I should have pointed out I was talking
>about American use. Though I personally have never seen the Japanese refer to
>the Lion King as "Disney anime," perhaps they do.
I was talking about how the Japanese use the word. And yes the
American usage is rather different. Even with the American usage of
the word anime, it is still not a genre.
>"As for "sweeping generaliztions" made by American fans of
>anime, people in general are constantly making generalizations. (See,
>just did it myself) Generalizations make life simpler; whether or not
>you agree with the generalizations made about anime, (I for one
>usually don't.) they will still be made, however right or wrong they
>may be."
>
> These sentences are tautological in construction and have virtually no content
>whatsoever.
As if you really don't know what I'm talking about. Your claim was:
"But that is not how the American fans really *mean* it. Otherwise,
they would never make sweeping generalizations regarding "anime" since
such a diffuse topic would invariably not be correctly summed by any
statement"
They do mean it. Their generalizations may be in error, but they are
still talking about anime, at least as they see it. Do you understand
now? Generalizations are usually wrong. Do I really have to be
explaining this to you?
>"When was the last time you saw anything Fauvist outside of an art
>museum? Anime is Japanese pop culture. With some exceptions it has to
>appeal its audience to be succesful. I thought that was a given. These
>are not limitations of the format, they are limitations of the target
>audience. Occasionally there are exceptions. Angel's Egg and kenji's
>Spring are 2 anime I know of that don't fit this mold."
>
> Try picking up Factsheet Five sometime...there are 'zines in there that are
>Fauvist in content and intent, even though they don't use that term. I do agree
>that anime is Jap pop culture, with one further narrowing: it is Japanese
>teenager pop culture. The vast majority of Japanese adults don't watch or care
>about anime.
True enough. But you ignored my examples. Would not either Kenji's
Spring or Angel's Egg qualify as very different/surreal?
> If the format (with a few exceptions) must appeal to the audience, then how is
>the format itself not limited? If you want to blame the Japanese (and recently,
>the American) anime audiences for the lack of innovative content, go right
>ahead. I completely agree with you on that one. It's just not a point I
>bothered to bring up; I was not laying blame, just analyzing the state of the
>(bad) art.
> The exceptions are *very* occasional, and have been getting more so steadily
>as the market becomes increasingly insular.
I haven't really noticed the exceptions becoming much rarer. They just
weren't very common to begin with.
>"You used the term Fauvism earlier, presumably to speak of a group of
>French painters from the first decade of this century, notably Matisse
>among them. Seeing as how fauve means "beast" and was used
>disparingingly at the time, should they not have felt great shame at
>being labeled as such?"
>
> Yeah, presumably, since that's the only real use of the term in English. And
>no, they should not have felt shame because they specifically were seeking to
>cultivate those traits that the art establishment were "smearing" them with.
>Matisse et al. *wanted* to be regarded as wild beasts who were "aggressively
>brutal" or "uncivilized and careless." So they embraced the term because it
>summoned up the image they wanted to apply to themselves.
And were they truly beasts? Did they really fit the perceptions of
those who criticized them? I don't think so, and I don't see why this
difference in perception is so different from the geek/otake one.
> By contrast, "geeks" and "otakus" do not want to be associated with the
>negative characteristics that conjures in the average mind. They just want to
>use the word, and pretend it means something else. Now, I am the first to admit
>that language is what its users say. But why bother trying to rearrange
>semantic structure when you can avoid that, and achieve instant communicatory
>ease, by saying "I'm not a geek. I'm an individual?"
> I'll tell you why: because people who are proud of "geekdom" are just as
>prejudiced as the "mundane" people they revile. They want their own little fan
>club, discrete from the outside world and available only to other "geeks" who
>fit their cool outsider image of themselves. If they were truly smart and
>inclusive, then there would be no need for specialized jargon in their
>discourse.
> Please note that this little analysis of psychological motives is only meant
>to extend to people who say they are "proud to be a geek!" Not everyone who has
>ever been called a geek--and not even everyone who *is* one--have this need for
>autonomous conformity.
As I've mentioned previously, I dislike labels with a passion.
>"Do you know that using as many obscure words in one sentence as
>possible does nothing for comprehension of what you write?
>Opprobium and tropes in the same sentence? I doubt I'll ever see that
>again."
>
> I use precise words, ones germane to the task at hand. Since English is a
>richly complected mess, it allows for more, and subtler, shades of meaning. I
>don't think that utilizing the correct words in a sentence makes it more
>difficult to comprehend; just more difficult to read, which is hardly the same.
>I'm sorry I made you work; perhaps, like anime, I should just cave in to the
>audience's pressure for reduced complexity and depth.
You didn't make me work. I merely don't see the need to complicate
things beyond what is necessary. English contains more than enough
synonyms to have everyone scratching their heads at some point. Seeing
as how this isn't a contest to see who can up with the most colorful
phrase, I don't really see the point, especially when at some point it
will hamper spreading across your point, if you even have one.
> If you actually, seriously doubt you'll ever see "opprobrium" and "tropes" in
>the same sentence again, maybe your reading selections are too narrow. Besides,
>novelty (in the linguistic sense) is a basic function of humanity's deep
>grammatical structure.
I sincerely doubt my reading selection is too narrow, but I gather it
is rather different from yours.
> In sum, it seems that the reactions to my statements spent a great deal of
>time dissecting *how* I said things. Both commentators disagreed with my
>conclusions, but neither offered any cogent rebuttal of them. In fact, very
>little was done to contradict even the most minor of my support. Primary focus
>was given to the fact that the way I talk was onerous or irritating; my basic
>point that "anime is mostly stupid" emerged without real opposition.
Ah yes, those ten minutes writing my response felt like a lifetime.
What I want to know is what's your point? Most anime, yes anime, is
trash. So? Most books are trash. Most music is trash. Most of
everything is trash. What exactly is the point of this discussion?
Other than a little bit of mental masturbation, what was the motive
for your post in the first place?
> I'm still waiting for it.
> And I don't mean "Oh yeah? Well you're a big dummy!"
> At this juncture, let me add the corollary that "anime fans are mostly
>stupid."
In light of what's been said, another meaningless statement. Though,
I'm sure it'll piss someone off.
andrew osmond
> The chequered history of "queer" doesn't really work as a
>counterexample. Its
>connotations were derived from the actual root meaning of the word and not
>societal application.
Drat, can't find my Dreamland Japan (Schodt). I'm sure he mentions that
the history of 'otaku' is similarly complex, the negative connotations
largely entering after a horrific child-killer case in Japan in the
'80s.
>Many of the "oppressive" words for homosexuals (including
>"homosexual" itself) started as descriptive terms. See Boswell for more.
I'm no expert, but personally I doubt whether such words were ever
'purely' descriptive: there's often a normative element somewhere.
> As far as KOR/Nausicaa/Barefoot Gen not being in the same genre, that's
>true
>for the usual use of the term. But "anime" is almost always used in a more
>restrictive manner than other types of medium, such as "painting" or even
>"gouache."
I honestly don't know what you mean, but we may be at cross-purposes.
Looking at my dictionary, I find two definitions of 'genre': (1) a kind
or type of literature, art, etc, and (2) paintings in which subjects
from everyday life are treated realistically.
Taking (2), I'd concede that *most* anime (as in Japanese animation)
follows limited visual conventions: representational settings, standard
'deformed' gags, saucer eyes, etc. Whether it's a 'realistic' treatment
of life is debatable, but there's probably less experimentation than in
animation as a whole.
The definition I had in mind was (1). Obviously, one can categorise
'types' of work in an infinite number of ways, but I think most people
would see e.g. Totoro and Overfiend as being in very different genres.
The question, then, is which diversity is more important? I believe the
answer is totally subjective; personally I go for (1). An animation
critic like Ginnalberto Bendazzi (who I hate) goes for (2). I don't see
the sides ever being reconciled.
> Terry Pratchett doesn't know what he's talking about,
Care to expand? Having interviewed him personally, he seemed extremely
well-read, even if his books don't always show it.
>but John Clute
>does. And
>yes, on second thought some anime veers into this territory, though without the
>usual "historical seeming imagined" aspect.
Kenji's Spring has this aspect. 'Historical' animes like Rose of
Versailles also border on the territory, though they're not magic
realist.
> Whether it's Sturgeon's Law or not, the question is whether it's true.
My point was the same as Pedro's. One could make a parallel case against
endless other forms of 'high' or 'popular' culture. I'd rather watch an
average Orange Road than plough through another solopsistic turkey by
Jeanette Winterson.
> How was this an ego-trip? Did I ever say, "Worship me!"
No, but your mandarin attitude, combined with the clear implication that
you're casting pearls before a stupid audience, makes the description
fair.
> And
>even
>if it was an ego trip, exactly how does that affect the veracity of my
>statements?
It doesn't: just an incidental comment.
>Like most respondents, you spend more time analyzing me and my
>objectives than you do actually confronting my points.
No, I didn't.
>For example, if magical
>realist anime does exist, is this a primary flaw that brings down the whole
>structure of what I said?
Not a primary flaw. I concede my comments on 'genre' may have been
misplaced, but your main point seems to reduce to 'a lot of anime is
probably very bad.' So? I consider it worth my time to navigate to the
better stuff.
> Your comments were more "fatuous" than mine...I mean, if you bother
>using the
>word correctly.
Fatuous: complacently stupid, foolish. I'll leave that up to others to
judge. Oh and as for prose style, try re-reading Orwell's Politics and
the English Language.
--
andrew osmond
M Arnold
opinion, but >because they are mostly just plain wrong. > First, "anime"
is not a medium. "Animation" is a medium; "anime" is a genre.
I think you need to clear this up a bit. The only people who think
"anime" is a genre, as far as my experience has shown me, are only the
foreign fans of "anime." In Japan, "anime" is Disney, the Simpsons,
Evangelion, Chibi Maruko-chan, Totoro, and etc. "Anime" means
"animeeshon" means "animation."
There is some discussion about "anime" being watched in the U.S. though,
so some Japanese fans may be aware of the foreign connotations.
> Again, no. When was the last time you saw a magical realist anime?
Magical realist... Heisei Tanuki Gassen Ponpoko is the first one I think
of.
> In other words, many people may be entertained by anime. But in no way
>does >that justify classification of the genre as somehow inherently
>groundbreaking >or successful.
I can agree with this part. Who was saying anime is inherently
groundbreaking? Does this have something to do with that essay we all
read a few days ago?
>"Anime geek" and its specifically Japanese form "otaku" are terms of derision
>meant to distance the speaker from the labelled. This is a human endeavor, and
Interesting way to describe it.
> Third, it's just plain stupid; a feeble, transparent attempt to co-opt a
label >whose unflattering connotations hit too close to home. > Thank you
Mike A
Arnold Kim
>
> Hello. I am afraid that I must disagree with virtually everything that has
> because they are mostly just plain wrong.
Oh, okay. It's nice to be a little open-minded for once.
> First, "anime" is not a medium. "Animation" is a medium; "anime" is a genre.
Then explain to me how you can fit, say, Kiki's Delivery Service, Crayon
Shin-chan, and Ninja Scroll under the same genre. Anime is simply the
medium of animation under a different cultural perspective.
> Admittedly, almost no one uses it in this way. Most American fans use it to
> mean "Japanese animation" and indeed that is the way some Jap media outlets
> like Newtype utilize the term. But that is not how the American fans really
> *mean* it. Otherwise, they would never make sweeping generalizations regarding
> "anime" since such a diffuse topic would invariably not be correctly summed by
> any statement (except, of course, "Most of it is devoid of merit.").
Those sweeping generalizations are often incorrect, as they surely can't
cover every corner of the medium. Again, refer back to the above
examples. What you're talking about are stereotypes, and they easily fail to
cover everything.
> Again, no. When was the last time you saw a magical realist anime? Or Romantic
> (as in the art movement, not the generic adjective)? Better yet, how about a
> Fauvist anime? Fluxus? No, I didn't think so. These are all, I suppose,
> possibilities, but the general market trend and the forces of mainstream
> success which control anime conspire to reduce it all to middle-of-the-road
> pablum. With great, though not quite total, success.
Mamoru Oshi. Angel's Egg. Later episodes of Evangelion. Akira. Anime
has quite a bit of room for real artistic expression. It isn't _all_ about the
yen.
> In other words, many people may be entertained by anime. But in no way does
> that justify classification of the genre as somehow inherently groundbreaking
> or successful.
But what exactly does that have to do with anything here? Must a form of
entertainment be groundbreaking in order to be considered valid?
Arnold Kim
big anime fan
Arnold Kim
> As far as KOR/Nausicaa/Barefoot Gen not being in the same genre, that's true
> for the usual use of the term. But "anime" is almost always used in a more
> restrictive manner than other types of medium, such as "painting" or even
> "gouache."
Often that use of the term is by people who don't know much better. They
really don't know how widespread anime can be.
Arnold Kim
likes variety
David Jackson
> > > generally use in a derogatory sense by people who are so narrowminded
> > > that they cannot appreciate other people have tastes which differ from
> > > them or the mainstream. I might be called a geek for watching anime,
> > > being a programmer or a physicist. Does this bother me? No.
> >
> > is supposed to produce in you: that is not to be ashamed of, or tolerated.
>
> enough to be able to turn your head at name calling without even getting
> a mild rise.
That sounds more like a self deception, actually. It's like that we don't want to believe
the reality. We only believe what we want to believe.....I'm not saying this to start
flames. Just think about it.....
> > When you call yourself "geek" or "otaku" you are saying you are proud
> > to be a deviant recluse incapable of personal warmth or intelligent
> > conversation.
>
> Literally, by calling yourself an otaku in Japan and America you are
> saying that you are an "obsessive fan". It's up to society to add
> different associations onto it such as "being incapable of personal
> warmth" or "intelligent conversation." Since anime fans have decided IN
> AMERICA that "otaku" IS a compliment rather than an insult it looks like
> your associations have no bearing or meaning to the interpretation of
> the word. Sorry.
The problems will arise during expos or convention, though. Some Japanese fans will come to
the events. And some US fans don't like that term either. If we don't explain the term
"otaku" that we believe in to our conversation partners, then it would create some mixed-bag
problems....
"Otaku" is a very misleading term because it has a similar yet different "definition" to
both Japanese and Americans. Both meanings have relation referring to anime fans and alike,
while the difference is the level of obsessiveness. So for instance, if we meet a fan on
convention, then he / she claim to be an otaku, who could I know which "otaku" he's/she's
referring to? Unless if he/she later explains me that she still go out and get a life, I
probably would have "labeled" her as a loser in the first place.
So if we could try to use a term other than "otaku", it would be much easier, safer, and we
won't be arguing this f***** term to death. We save time, we safe effort, and everyone is
happy. There won't be uncertainty no more.
Greene
>
> >
> > OR it is something to be proud of...that you can believe in something
> > enough to be able to turn your head at name calling without even getting
> > a mild rise.
>
> That sounds more like a self deception, actually. It's like that we don't want to believe
> the reality. We only believe what we want to believe.....I'm not saying this to start
> flames. Just think about it.....
Now you're starting to sound like Hideaki Anno...you haven't made a
movie that's non stop sex and violence to my knowledge, so I won't jump
on you for this...yet.
Bottom line: You're going to have to accept that it isn't a REALITY that
*all* anime fans are losers. Some of us have careers, jobs, wives,
social lives, OTHER hobbies, and close friends. We also take showers
regularly and DON'T dress up as Salior Moon. So when some dorky guy
hiding on the internet (people that have seen me face to face haven't
insulted me in more than 10 years) gets up and says, "ALL the people
that watch anime need to get a life" the fact that I can stay this calm
and rationalize with this person IS something I am proud of...my italian
instinct is to rip this person to shreads (verbally...of course), but if
I can repress that and just recognize that 99% of the time people insult
other people as a way to combat inferiority then who is truly running
from reality? I KNOW this person is full of crap...I have met many anime
fans that aren't losers, so being able to ignore him instead of simply
insulting him back isn't running, it's called "being better than that."
> The problems will arise during expos or convention, though. Some Japanese fans will come to
> the events. And some US fans don't like that term either. If we don't explain the term
> "otaku" that we believe in to our conversation partners, then it would create some mixed-bag
> problems....
Well, considering I have never been to a single US convention I can't
really comment there, the only true firsthand experience I have had with
the word "otaku" and it's connotations is on the internet (more
specifically, this newsgroup), and if you try to say it is being used in
anything less than a positive mannger in America then you are wrong.
People do indeed use it to express that they like anime a lot (including
me), and to take this to a further extreme the word is even being
adopted by MANY video game fans over here (Playstation magazine [PSM]
labels everything imported from Japan as "otaku" related...and then
there is a full fledged website titled Sega Otaku...). If you really
think it is a fact that "otaku" must be a negative word even in America
just because it happens to be an insult in Japan, then I suggest
crawling out of YOUR hole and opening your eyes. This is America...we
interpret and use words any damn way we see fit to.
- D'Ary, an anime fan...and PROUD of it!
David Johnston
>
> Hello. I am afraid that I must disagree with virtually everything that has
> been said by everyone. And not just because I have a different opinion, but
> because they are mostly just plain wrong.
Does the class "All professional paintings from France" constitute a genre?
> Admittedly, almost no one uses it in this way. Most American fans use it to
> mean "Japanese animation" and indeed that is the way some Jap media outlets
> like Newtype utilize the term. But that is not how the American fans really
> *mean* it. Otherwise, they would never make sweeping generalizations regarding
> "anime" since such a diffuse topic would invariably not be correctly summed by
> any statement (except, of course, "Most of it is devoid of merit.").
Why wouldn't they? People make generalisations all the time even
though said generalisations may actually only cover a minority of
the subject being generalised.
>
> "Anyone who says that anime is not a valid form of entertainment is just being
> ignorant. If you take away the sterotypes in a person's mind, it can entertain
> as successfuly and with equal range as any other medium."
>
> Again, no. When was the last time you saw a magical realist anime? Or Romantic
> (as in the art movement, not the generic adjective)? Better yet, how about a
> Fauvist anime? Fluxus? No, I didn't think so. These are all, I suppose,
> possibilities, but the general market trend and the forces of mainstream
> success which control anime conspire to reduce it all to middle-of-the-road
> pablum. With great, though not quite total, success.
Most of everything is middle-of-the-road pablum. So? Most paintings are
velvet Elvises, poker playing dogs and the like. Most novels are cheesy
romances, unthrilling thrillers and the like.
Besides, those who say that "anime is not a valid form of entertainment", aren't
saying "most of it is middle of the road pablum". They're saying it's totally
worthless crap for children and perverts.
> We're talking exclusively about the range of anime here, and not the
> entertainment factor. Years of demographic studies--or a few hours of observing
> teenagers--support the conclusion that a widespread cultural audience will
> accept almost any level of artistic quality, provided it masquerades as
> representing their shared societal experience, or provides even the simplest
> escape routes from it.
> In other words, many people may be entertained by anime. But in no way does
> that justify classification of the genre as somehow inherently groundbreaking
> or successful.
So something must be inherently groundbreaking or successful to be valid
entertainment?
>
> Someones call us "geeks" or "otakus" (this is not something to be proud)
> >
> > I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, either. These terms are
> > generally use in a derogatory sense by people who are so narrowminded
> > that they cannot appreciate other people have tastes which differ from
> > them or the mainstream. I might be called a geek for watching anime,
> > being a programmer or a physicist. Does this bother me? No.
>
> It definitely *is* something to be ashamed of. The sense of marginalization it
> is supposed to produce in you: that is not to be ashamed of, or tolerated.
> "Anime geek" and its specifically Japanese form "otaku" are terms of derision
> meant to distance the speaker from the labelled. This is a human endeavor, and
> not the source of the problem. The difficulty stems from the labelled assuming
> that since they dislike aspects of the existence the labeller stands for (or at
> least within), they should take on the iconic label as a badge of honor.
> Nothing could be more unintelligent.
> Since most words of opprobrium contain very basic tropes of unacceptability,
> they should be examined before being wholeheartedly embraced (or rejected).
> "Otaku" carries more weight than just "this person likes anime." It also means
> "...and very little else, including normal human interaction or untrammeled
> reality." When you call yourself "geek" or "otaku" you are saying you are proud
> to be a deviant recluse incapable of personal warmth or intelligent
> conversation.
You say that as though it were a bad thing.
> Finally, "geek" cannot be used as a synonym for "deeply ponder." For one, it
> is too close a neologism to the identical-meaning "grok." Second, it already
> has use as a verb (and noun) for those wacky circus performers.
This isn't the sixties. "Grok" is dead.
> Third, it's just plain stupid; a feeble, transparent attempt to co-opt a label
> whose unflattering connotations hit too close to home.
Hooey. Fans of Japanese animation call themselves otaku mostly because
of Otaku No Video, which popularised the term in North America.
The unflattering elements of the label in Japan are mostly
lost on them, or are considered unimportant because they don't
live in Japan. It has taken on a meaning of it's own, here.
After all are science fiction and sports fans really claiming
that they are prepared to kill and die for science fiction and
sports? Fan is short for fanatic, you know.
> Thank you for your time.
LyabiBrave
Yes, my point is "most anime is very stupid." You may remove "probably" from
your version. I'm glad you picked up on this...seeing as I said it exactly that
way a couple times. Let me reiterate:
Most anime is bad. Stinky. Devoid of artistic merit.
Your confusion stems from not knowing why I would say this. "But all pop
culture is bad. Why rag on anime?" Because I'm in an anime newsgroup. If we
were talking about novels, that's what I'd be complaining about.
I am goading you, yes. To not accept the anime that's out there, this
pervasive crap you're being handed. When people talk of Evangelion as though it
were great, something is terribly wrong. Evangelion is the bare minimum of what
I accept as art.
Yes, I know that anime is made for money. So was Citizen Kane.
Does every show have to be that great? While it would be nice if they were, it
would be unrealistic to expect. I'll settle for "uses its brain every now and
again." Like Evangelion.
Can something be enjoyable even if it doesn't probe the deepest recesses of
the human psyche? Of course. But if it can do both--and I think the history of
art shows it can--then why not demand such? I'm not saying we'll get it. But if
you never ask, so shall ye never receive.
Saying that anime is a "genre" or a "medium" (and I still think, for American
use, it's closer to the first) does not change the content. And we all seem to
agree it's pretty lowest-common-denominator.
As for my language being political--right again. So is everyone's, when they
use any terms which they value highly or very little. Those are the things you
care about, so you couch them in volatile, emotive terms. I hardly think that's
evil.
I don't want you to agree with me. I want you to think, think, think. And I
want, more than anything, for fans to demand quality higher than what they get.
That means not supporting, in word or deed, what they're currently offered.
Why should I be committed to changing this tiny, insignificant portion of
global culture called anime? Because I like the good stuff. Yet when the masses
(used in that wacky way everyone does) accept crap, mostly crap gets made. And
that means I have to wade through more junk to get to the quality. Wouldn't you
rather the wading process were shorter, and the high-quality product you're
looking for more common? It can happen.
But not if you just say, "Everything is how it is. Quit saying you're
dissatisfied."
Trust me, that's what Orwell meant.
andrew osmond
> Yes, my point is "most anime is very stupid." You may remove "probably"
>from
>your version. I'm glad you picked up on this...seeing as I said it exactly that
>way a couple times.
No, you didn't. All you mentioned was 'artistic merit' (below).
> Let me reiterate:
> Most anime is bad. Stinky. Devoid of artistic merit.
We could have hours of fun debating whether 'devoid of artistic merit'
entails 'stinky' (or even 'bad'), but it's probably off-topic.
> Your confusion stems from not knowing why I would say this. "But all pop
>culture is bad.
Much pop culture and much 'high' culture.
>When people talk of Evangelion as though it
>were great, something is terribly wrong. Evangelion is the bare minimum of what
>I accept as art.
Ah, specifics at last. (God, that took a long time.) OK, you think Eva
is overrated? So do I, though 'The End' makes up for some of it. If you
bother setting down your critique in more detail, we could have an
interesting debate. I might even side with you.
Personally, I'm a Miyazaki addict. If you want to start a 'Miyazaki is
artistically worthless' thread, I'm sure you'd get a lively debate in no
time.
>Can something be enjoyable even if it doesn't probe the deepest recesses
>of
>the human psyche? Of course. But if it can do both--and I think the history of
>art shows it can--then why not demand such? I'm not saying we'll get it. But if
>you never ask, so shall ye never receive.
Ah. Now, do you have some coherent game-plan for how we, a news-group of
largely western fans, are going to cause an artistic revolution in
anime? Publicise the good stuff? As a freelance writer, I've been doing
that for years. Lobby import labels to release quality product? That's a
long-standing fan tradition. What other wheezes do you have? Bomb hentai
producers? Assasinate Carl Maceck? Write irritating posts to r.a.a.m.?
I'm all ears.
> As for my language being political--right again.
Intellectual snobbery is not political in my book.
> I don't want you to agree with me. I want you to think, think, think.
So we're the unthinking masses, waiting for the visionary liberator?
What was that about no ego-trips? (Purely for the record, I'm a
Philosophy graduate from Cambridge, England - not a very good one, but
the concept of thought is one I've encountered.)
>
>And I
>want, more than anything, for fans to demand quality higher than what they get.
>That means not supporting, in word or deed, what they're currently offered.
A sarcastic wow. I'll go out right now and actively stop supporting
Overfiend and Eva. How?
> Because I like the good stuff. Yet when the masses
>(used in that wacky way everyone does) accept crap, mostly crap gets made. And
>that means I have to wade through more junk to get to the quality. Wouldn't you
>rather the wading process were shorter, and the high-quality product you're
>looking for more common?
Beyond the selfish subtext (My tastes are more valid and important and
the masses, so everyone convert to my way of thinking), you've forgotten
we, your audience, *are* the masses. You're preaching to the wrong
congregation. Go to the modern-day Bloomsburys and start campaigning
there. They hate us as much as you do, so you might get somewhere.
>It can happen.
> But not if you just say, "Everything is how it is. Quit saying you're
>dissatisfied."
Um, I'd apply that to debates on the welfare state and civil rights. As
a natural born philistine, pop-culture is rather low on my list.
--
andrew osmond
Innpchan
In article <19981113015328...@ng135.aol.com>, lyabi...@aol.com
(LyabiBrave) writes:
> First, "anime" is not a medium. "Animation" is a medium; "anime" is a
>genre.
No, "magical realism" is a genre.
>When was the last time you saw a magical realist anime?
Prior to the 1970s, there was no such term as "magical realism". Does this
mean that cinema and literature were invalid and pablumic art forms prior to
that time? Some logic, please.
> Or Romantic(as in the art movement, not the generic adjective)? Better yet,
how >about a Fauvist anime? Fluxus? No, I didn't think so. These are all, I
suppose,
>possibilities, but the general market trend and the forces of mainstream
>success which control anime conspire to reduce it all to middle-of-the-road
>pablum.
The very same could be said about cinema in general. You are treading very
close to trolldom here.
thepig
***
Entering the realm of the purely theoretical here, but (short of JATO rockets)
is it even POSSIBLE to make Chevy Berettas as fast as their owners think they
are?
***
C.J. Scott --the pig
Innpchan
In article <19981113052135...@ng131.aol.com>, lyabi...@aol.com
(LyabiBrave) writes:
>Matisse et al. *wanted* to be regarded as wild beasts who were "aggressively
>brutal" or "uncivilized and careless." So they embraced the term because it
>summoned up the image they wanted to apply to themselves.
> By contrast, "geeks" and "otakus" do not want to be associated with the
>negative characteristics that conjures in the average mind. They just want to
>use the word, and pretend it means something else. Now, I am the first to
>admit
>that language is what its users say. But why bother trying to rearrange
>semantic structure when you can avoid that, and achieve instant communicatory
>ease, by saying "I'm not a geek. I'm an individual?"
> I'll tell you why: because people who are proud of "geekdom" are just
as
>prejudiced as the "mundane" people they revile. They want their own little
>fan
>club, discrete from the outside world and available only to other "geeks" who
>fit their cool outsider image of themselves. If they were truly smart and
>inclusive, then there would be no need for specialized jargon in their
>discourse.
So how are they in the SLIGHTEST bit different from Matisse? He was reaching
for what he considered the "positive" aspects of beastdom, and was certainly
not slavering for mainstream acceptance.
Really kid, three months of 100-level art history does not make you an expert
on anything. You're talking the talk, but I doubt you can even take the first
step of the walk. Come back when you're not on Mom's account.
Antaeus Feldspar
[snip]
> "Otaku" is a very misleading term because it has a similar yet different
> "definition" to both Japanese and Americans. Both meanings have relation
> referring to anime fans and alike, while the difference is the level of
> obsessiveness. So for instance, if we meet a fan on convention, then he /
> she claim to be an otaku, who could I know which "otaku" he's/she's
> referring to? Unless if he/she later explains me that she still go out
> and get a life, I probably would have "labeled" her as a loser in the
> first place.
>
> So if we could try to use a term other than "otaku", it would be much
> easier, safer, and we won't be arguing this f***** term to death. We save
> time, we safe effort, and everyone is happy. There won't be uncertainty
> no more.
I've been led to believe by a Japanese acquaintance that
"maniakku" is a milder term to express some of the same ideas as
"otaku": i.e. no one could miss this person's serious interest, and it
may be so intense an interest as to appear humorous to outsiders (which
is what I think we use "otaku" to mean in the first place, and since
when did being able to laugh at oneself stop being a sign of good mental
health?) ... but it doesn't mean that the person's actually "sick."
Arnold Kim
>
> Hi there.
> Yes, my point is "most anime is very stupid." You may remove "probably" from
> your version. I'm glad you picked up on this...seeing as I said it exactly that
> Most anime is bad. Stinky. Devoid of artistic merit.
Of course, this assumes that "deviod of artistic merit" equates to "stinky".
> I am goading you, yes. To not accept the anime that's out there, this
> pervasive crap you're being handed. When people talk of Evangelion as though it
> were great, something is terribly wrong. Evangelion is the bare minimum of what
> I accept as art.
Okay, then what exactly do you accept? Are you going to demand for every
work to be a masterpiece?
Why do you like anime, if so few works meet your high standards of
quality?
> Yes, I know that anime is made for money. So was Citizen Kane.
To be able to accompish both artistic merit and boxoffice success is
something that's not easy to do.
> Does every show have to be that great? While it would be nice if they were, it
> would be unrealistic to expect. I'll settle for "uses its brain every now and
> again." Like Evangelion.
> Can something be enjoyable even if it doesn't probe the deepest recesses of
> the human psyche? Of course. But if it can do both--and I think the history of
> art shows it can--then why not demand such? I'm not saying we'll get it. But if
> you never ask, so shall ye never receive.
Why? Because it's too high a standard. It takes a pretty special creator to
come up with an original idea and execute it in such a way that it is
meaningful artistically and entertaining.
In the meantime, you can devoid yourself of anime and protest its low
standards all you want. I'll be actually enjoying myself sitting back and
watching some Tenchi Muyo or some other "crap".
Arnold Kim
saw some Lubin II today...
David Johnston
>
> Hi there.
> Yes, my point is "most anime is very stupid." You may remove "probably" from
> your version. I'm glad you picked up on this...seeing as I said it exactly that
> way a couple times. Let me reiterate:
> Most anime is bad. Stinky. Devoid of artistic merit.
> were talking about novels, that's what I'd be complaining about.
> I am goading you, yes. To not accept the anime that's out there, this
> pervasive crap you're being handed. When people talk of Evangelion as though it
> were great, something is terribly wrong. Evangelion is the bare minimum of what
> I accept as art.
> Why should I be committed to changing this tiny, insignificant portion of
> global culture called anime? Because I like the good stuff. Yet when the masses
> (used in that wacky way everyone does) accept crap, mostly crap gets made. And
> that means I have to wade through more junk to get to the quality. Wouldn't you
> rather the wading process were shorter, and the high-quality product you're
> looking for more common? It can happen.
There's a slight problem. I'm pretty sure that, like most members of the
masses, I'd hate what you would like. That being the case, I see little reason
to rally under your banner.
> But not if you just say, "Everything is how it is. Quit saying you're
> dissatisfied."
David Johnston
>
> Hi there.
> Yes, my point is "most anime is very stupid." You may remove "probably" from
> your version. I'm glad you picked up on this...seeing as I said it exactly that
> way a couple times. Let me reiterate:
> Most anime is bad. Stinky. Devoid of artistic merit.
Presumably that means I like things that are bad. Stinky. Devoid of artistic
merit.
> Your confusion stems from not knowing why I would say this. "But all pop
> culture is bad. Why rag on anime?" Because I'm in an anime newsgroup. If we
> were talking about novels, that's what I'd be complaining about.
I'm sure you enjoy complaining.
> I am goading you, yes. To not accept the anime that's out there, this
> pervasive crap you're being handed. When people talk of Evangelion as though it
> were great, something is terribly wrong. Evangelion is the bare minimum of what
> I accept as art.
> Yes, I know that anime is made for money. So was Citizen Kane.
> Does every show have to be that great? While it would be nice if they were,
No it wouldn't. Some people don't like Citizen Kane and wouldn't want to be
limited to shows like Citizen Kane for their entertainment. Actually, even
though I did like Citizen Kane I _still_ wouldn't want to be limited to shows
like that. And, for the record, "Rosebud" was _not_ the sled.
it
> would be unrealistic to expect. I'll settle for "uses its brain every now and
> again." Like Evangelion.
> Can something be enjoyable even if it doesn't probe the deepest recesses of
> the human psyche? Of course. But if it can do both--and I think the history of
> art shows it can--then why not demand such? I'm not saying we'll get it. But if
> you never ask, so shall ye never receive.
Demand from whom? And in what way?
> Saying that anime is a "genre" or a "medium" (and I still think, for American
> use, it's closer to the first) does not change the content. And we all seem to
> agree it's pretty lowest-common-denominator.
> As for my language being political--right again. So is everyone's, when they
> use any terms which they value highly or very little. Those are the things you
> care about, so you couch them in volatile, emotive terms. I hardly think that's
> evil.
Actually nobody called your language "political" so far as I noticed.
"Pretentious" comes closer to the mark.
> I don't want you to agree with me. I want you to think, think, think. And I
> want, more than anything, for fans to demand quality higher than what they get.
> That means not supporting, in word or deed, what they're currently offered.
Sure. Let's send the message that importing anime is unprofitable. That'll
fix all our problems.
> Why should I be committed to changing this tiny, insignificant portion of
> global culture called anime? Because I like the good stuff. Yet when the masses
> (used in that wacky way everyone does) accept crap, mostly crap gets made. And
> that means I have to wade through more junk to get to the quality. Wouldn't you
> rather the wading process were shorter, and the high-quality product you're
> looking for more common? It can happen.
NO! The last thing I want is more restricted selection. I don't believe for
a moment that "high-quality product" would become more common or that the idiots
running my local video places would be more capable of weeding out the excellent
from the mediocre than I am. Even more importantly, I doubt that they would
be able to mimic my personal tastes more accurately with a smaller selection.
And if you are "committed" to changing anime, a good place to start would be
to dispense with this vague jargon-laden sloganeering and insulting rhetoric,
and write about what actually is good, and why you think it's good, thereby
encouraging people to mimic your tastes in their buying habits. That assumes
that you are actually capable of writing something positive and substantive.
So far the gist of your commentary has been, "Anime is junk.
Don't buy it." You'll forgive me if I find this line of reasoning less than
compelling.
> But not if you just say, "Everything is how it is. Quit saying you're
> dissatisfied."
How about, "Bitching never fixed anything."?
David Johnston
David Johnston
>
> David Jackson <davi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > "Otaku" is a very misleading term because it has a similar yet different
> > "definition" to both Japanese and Americans. Both meanings have relation
> > referring to anime fans and alike, while the difference is the level of
> > obsessiveness. So for instance, if we meet a fan on convention, then he /
> > she claim to be an otaku, who could I know which "otaku" he's/she's
> > referring to? Unless if he/she later explains me that she still go out
> > and get a life, I probably would have "labeled" her as a loser in the
> > first place.
> >
> > So if we could try to use a term other than "otaku", it would be much
> > easier, safer, and we won't be arguing this f***** term to death. We save
> > time, we safe effort, and everyone is happy. There won't be uncertainty
> > no more.
>
> I've been led to believe by a Japanese acquaintance that
> "maniakku" is a milder term to express some of the same ideas as
> "otaku": i.e. no one could miss this person's serious interest, and it
> may be so intense an interest as to appear humorous to outsiders (which
> is what I think we use "otaku" to mean in the first place, and since
> when did being able to laugh at oneself stop being a sign of good mental
> health?) ... but it doesn't mean that the person's actually "sick."
Right. Let's go around calling ourselves "maniacs". That will improve
our image.
Bram
Arnold Kim wrote:
> LyabiBrave wrote:
> >
> > Hi there.
> > Yes, my point is "most anime is very stupid." You may remove "probably" from
> > your version. I'm glad you picked up on this...seeing as I said it exactly that
> > way a couple times. Let me reiterate:
> > Most anime is bad. Stinky. Devoid of artistic merit.
>
> Of course, this assumes that "deviod of artistic merit" equates to "stinky".
>
> > I am goading you, yes. To not accept the anime that's out there, this
> > pervasive crap you're being handed. When people talk of Evangelion as though it
> > were great, something is terribly wrong. Evangelion is the bare minimum of what
> > I accept as art.
>
> Okay, then what exactly do you accept? Are you going to demand for every
> work to be a masterpiece?
>
> Why do you like anime, if so few works meet your high standards of
> quality?
>
> > Yes, I know that anime is made for money. So was Citizen Kane.
>
> To be able to accompish both artistic merit and boxoffice success is
> something that's not easy to do.
>
> > Does every show have to be that great? While it would be nice if they were, it
> > would be unrealistic to expect. I'll settle for "uses its brain every now and
> > again." Like Evangelion.
> > Can something be enjoyable even if it doesn't probe the deepest recesses of
> > the human psyche? Of course. But if it can do both--and I think the history of
> > art shows it can--then why not demand such? I'm not saying we'll get it. But if
> > you never ask, so shall ye never receive.
>
> Why? Because it's too high a standard. It takes a pretty special creator to
> come up with an original idea and execute it in such a way that it is
> meaningful artistically and entertaining.
From resources of Scott Frazier (I forgot if it's his webpage or email), the creators do
have original ideas that describe to be "meaningful artistically and entertaining". In
fact, they do have A LOT of original ideas from each staff of the production house
(including the animators and inbetweeners, too). The distributors / sponsors, though are
too afraid to take such risk because they've invensted so much money to the production
house, and they want the products to sell well. In order to sell well, they look at the
previous products made that were (or still are) popular to the consumers (like Tenchi Muyo,
or Slayers for instance). So they "wanted" the production house to "follow" the trend in
order not to be broke.
Scott even quoted that to be accepted to work in anime production house, you have to come
out with original ideas, characters, and concepts. They ain't accept no fanarts copycats.
Well, at least Anno Hideaki tried to break the "boundry" of the trend by creating Evangelion
couple of years ago. Now we know how popular it becomes later when it hit the TV
screen.....Since then, Evangelion becomes the new trend and plenty of recent animes "copied"
its themes and concept to follow the new direction.
Remember the phenomenom of "Twister" and "Independence Day"? They're no different....
I've seen Perfect Blue, and I got a feeling this anime will break more boundries of the
recent trend.....This is a type of anime that appeals to more wide audience, not only fans.
So your fraternities friend might be interested to anime after seeing this.....
As far as I know, only Miyazaki , Mamoru Oshii, and Katsuhiro Otomo are few of the creators
who are given more privileges to create their original ideas in their films with full
support (and funding, too) from their sponsors. Hopefully more freedom will be given to
other creators, too in the near future.....
Antaeus Feldspar
*sigh* We are *already* calling ourselves "otaku," a word whose
connotations are much stronger and less positive than "maniakku."
Did it ever occur to you that people who can laugh at themselves
*have* more positive images than those who are uptight about their
images and can't tolerate any humor aimed at them? "No, I will *not*
refer to myself as 'otaku,' and I will *not* refer to myself as
'maniakku,' and I will *not* refer to myself with any term except one
which has *no* negative connotations! I am completely normal; normal,
dammit, and I refuse to tolerate the merest implications that I'm not!"
Oh, yeah. THAT sort of defensiveness gives a positive image.
Damien Roc
>
> Hello. I am afraid that I must disagree with virtually everything that has
> been said by everyone. And not just because I have a different opinion, but
> because they are mostly just plain wrong.
meaning you have a different opinion.
> First, "anime" is not a medium. "Animation" is a medium; "anime" is a genre.
Incorrect. Anime is a medium (or, more accurately, a submedium) while
"science fiction" is a genre... Genre's traverse mediums, and mediums
enclose various genres. I can read a sci-fi novel, see a sci-fi movie,
listen to sci-fi music, etc. However, I can only "watch" anime, tho that
anime may be sci-fi... or mystery, or horror, or whatever.
> Admittedly, almost no one uses it in this way. Most American fans use it to
> mean "Japanese animation" and indeed that is the way some Jap media outlets
> like Newtype utilize the term. But that is not how the American fans really
> *mean* it. Otherwise, they would never make sweeping generalizations regarding
> "anime" since such a diffuse topic would invariably not be correctly summed by
> any statement (except, of course, "Most of it is devoid of merit.").
That's not true... sweeping generalizations can be made for both genre's
(all sci-fi is crap) or mediums (all American movies are shallow). It's
difficult to distinguish between the two at first sight, because most
sweeping generalizations are (inherently) incorrect. However, upon
examining the reasoning behind them, you'll usually find that those made
about anime (such as how anime tells stories, and the conventions used)
are those tied to the medium (and the development of that medium).
> "Anyone who says that anime is not a valid form of entertainment is just being
> ignorant. If you take away the sterotypes in a person's mind, it can entertain
> as successfuly and with equal range as any other medium."
>
> Again, no. When was the last time you saw a magical realist anime? Or Romantic
Truth be told, the only difference I can see between magical realism and
fantasy is one is regarded as "literary" and the other isn't... And, as
yet, I haven't come across anything outside of written media that has
been described as magical realist.
> (as in the art movement, not the generic adjective)? Better yet, how about a
> Fauvist anime? Fluxus? No, I didn't think so. These are all, I suppose,
> possibilities, but the general market trend and the forces of mainstream
> success which control anime conspire to reduce it all to middle-of-the-road
> pablum. With great, though not quite total, success.
You're point? If your asking for anime created with an artistic vision
at the forefront, it does exist. Angel's Egg comes to mind. So does
Evangelion. The fact that they may or may not fall easily into the
labels of artistic styles w/in other media shouldn't be a problem.
On the other hand if you're just saying that most anime is designed to
be appealing to large audiences, then it's very true... However, it's
also true of any other medium.
> We're talking exclusively about the range of anime here, and not the
> entertainment factor. Years of demographic studies--or a few hours of observing
> teenagers--support the conclusion that a widespread cultural audience will
> accept almost any level of artistic quality, provided it masquerades as
> representing their shared societal experience, or provides even the simplest
> escape routes from it.
> In other words, many people may be entertained by anime. But in no way does
> that justify classification of the genre as somehow inherently groundbreaking
> or successful.
True, however upon examination of the medium, and what it is doing in
western (particularly American) society, one might argue that the
cultural ties it is generating (or at least subconscious cultural
interest) is indeed groundbreaking. Successful? That's for the
historians of the future to determine.
> Someones call us "geeks" or "otakus" (this is not something to be proud)
> >
> > I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, either. These terms are
> > generally use in a derogatory sense by people who are so narrowminded
> > that they cannot appreciate other people have tastes which differ from
> > them or the mainstream. I might be called a geek for watching anime,
> > being a programmer or a physicist. Does this bother me? No.
>
> It definitely *is* something to be ashamed of. The sense of marginalization it
> is supposed to produce in you: that is not to be ashamed of, or tolerated.
> "Anime geek" and its specifically Japanese form "otaku" are terms of derision
> meant to distance the speaker from the labelled. This is a human endeavor, and
> not the source of the problem. The difficulty stems from the labelled assuming
> that since they dislike aspects of the existence the labeller stands for (or at
> least within), they should take on the iconic label as a badge of honor.
> Nothing could be more unintelligent.
Sorry, but I disagree wholeheartedly. I can think of very few things
more intellegent than turning someone's weapon (the derisive label) back
at them (as a badge of honor.) It certainly speaks of the tenacity of
people to hold their beliefs even when the majority of society is
against them.
> Since most words of opprobrium contain very basic tropes of unacceptability,
> they should be examined before being wholeheartedly embraced (or rejected).
> "Otaku" carries more weight than just "this person likes anime." It also means
> "...and very little else, including normal human interaction or untrammeled
> reality." When you call yourself "geek" or "otaku" you are saying you are proud
> to be a deviant recluse incapable of personal warmth or intelligent
> conversation.
Again I disagree. What I've seen, when people call themselves "otaku" is
that, yes, they are fans, but they are more than the average fan... The
only reason I've noted that the term (or geek or nerd) may have derisive
backing to them is because they object of the fandom is less mainstream
than that of other people... There are plenty of people who are far more
obsessive about sports than most of us are about anime, yet you'd never
see them be referred to as a "sports geek".
> Finally, "geek" cannot be used as a synonym for "deeply ponder." For one, it
> is too close a neologism to the identical-meaning "grok." Second, it already
> has use as a verb (and noun) for those wacky circus performers.
You forget that language is a constantly evolving body. Words are going
to mean similar things, tho they will not be used in the same time
period, usually. So while "grok" may have been an acceptable word some
years ago, it's very possible that "geek" is the word of use now. As an
analogy, consider the uses of the words "wizard" "bad" "cool" and
"dope". All have been used in very similar ways, tho not always at the
same time.
> Third, it's just plain stupid; a feeble, transparent attempt to co-opt a label
> whose unflattering connotations hit too close to home.
As opposed to the alternative, I suppose. Accept the label as truth and
actually BE an outcast. Sorry, but I'm a bit more assertive than that, I
think, I'll be different than society, but I'm going to change it, too.
> Thank you for your time.
Damien Roc
Umi's Champion
Nuriko's Honor Guard
Alita - Morrigan Aensland - Rei Ayanami
Shun Kisaragi - Trowa Barton - Ukyou
Minami Takayama - Megumi Hayashibara
"So you can talk to people in real time? So what?
Why not just use the friggin' phone?"
"Where you Been, Evo? What do you use your
computer for?"
"Playin' Quake. What else is it good for?"
-Evo and Powerhaus, DV8 #24
Damien Roc
>
> Is there a Pseud's Corner page on the internet?
>
> >has
> >been said by everyone. And not just because I have a different opinion, but
> >because they are mostly just plain wrong.
> >genre.
>
> KOR and Barefoot Gen are in the same genre, I'm a phallic tentacle.
<falls out of chair laughing>
Ooh... there's an analogy for the history books. ^_^;;;
<snip>
> > When was the last time you saw a magical realist anime?
>
> Magic realism is a contentious category (Terry Pratchett once called it,
> 'Fantasy by someone who went to the critic's university.') Referring to
> the Encyclopedia of Fantasy, a suggested definition is '[a work which]
> subjects its various subjects to manipulations that make the fictional
> seem true, the historical seem imagined; but always within an ultimate
> frame that acknowledges the ongoing world (John Clute).'
>
> I'd suggest both Kenji's Spring and Whisper of the Heart as candidates:
> any others?
Kiki's Delivery Service? Maybe not... Still, by the above definition,
Studio Ghibli seems to have some strong elements of "magical realism" in
their films.
<snip>
Damien Roc
>
> Hi there.
> Yes, my point is "most anime is very stupid." You may remove "probably" from
> your version. I'm glad you picked up on this...seeing as I said it exactly that
> way a couple times. Let me reiterate:
> Most anime is bad. Stinky. Devoid of artistic merit.
I don't think anyone would disagree with you on this... however, your
stance seems to point towards the fact that anime is worse off because
of this. That's a rather limited view, because the same would apply to
just about any large body of artistic or entertainment work.
> Your confusion stems from not knowing why I would say this. "But all pop
> culture is bad. Why rag on anime?" Because I'm in an anime newsgroup. If we
> were talking about novels, that's what I'd be complaining about.
So you're hear to complain? To criticize? Gee... to go back to your
label point, how about the appliance of the label "troll"?
> I am goading you, yes. To not accept the anime that's out there, this
> pervasive crap you're being handed. When people talk of Evangelion as though it
> were great, something is terribly wrong. Evangelion is the bare minimum of what
> I accept as art.
Probably because EVA wasn't meant as art as I see you defining it...
it's value as a visual or auditory piece may be rather miniscule (and
rather conformist, in most cases, but that's what will usually happen
when confined to a medium) but it's philosophical statements are far
greater... I've honestly yet to come across anything that causes people
to ask about themselves what they got out of it while still keeping a
rather intact story and plotline and mostly three dimensional
characters.
<snip>
> Saying that anime is a "genre" or a "medium" (and I still think, for American
> use, it's closer to the first) does not change the content. And we all seem to
> agree it's pretty lowest-common-denominator.
Incorrect, we seem to agree that MOST of it is LCD. However, I don't
think you understand that as the point of the criticism of your view...
You are saying (or at least implying) ALL, not MOST.
> I don't want you to agree with me. I want you to think, think, think. And I
> want, more than anything, for fans to demand quality higher than what they get.
> That means not supporting, in word or deed, what they're currently offered.
Honestly, if you truly hold that view, how did you ever become a fan in
the first place?
> Why should I be committed to changing this tiny, insignificant portion of
> global culture called anime? Because I like the good stuff. Yet when the masses
> (used in that wacky way everyone does) accept crap, mostly crap gets made. And
> that means I have to wade through more junk to get to the quality. Wouldn't you
> rather the wading process were shorter, and the high-quality product you're
> looking for more common? It can happen.
Dude, that'll happen no matter what your chosen entertainment is... Live
with it. Crap's easier to make, and if people are making a lot of it,
there's a rather good chance that we'll see more good stuff, too.
Damien Roc
>
> LyabiBrave <lyabi...@aol.com> writes
>
> > Yes, my point is "most anime is very stupid." You may remove "probably"
> >from
> >your version. I'm glad you picked up on this...seeing as I said it exactly that
> >way a couple times.
>
>
> > Most anime is bad. Stinky. Devoid of artistic merit.
>
> entails 'stinky' (or even 'bad'), but it's probably off-topic.
Still, it'd be fairly interesting, to say the least... Anyone remember
Epsilon (Aaron Peori) and Aaron White debating about "merit in anime"?
> >And I
> >want, more than anything, for fans to demand quality higher than what they get.
> >That means not supporting, in word or deed, what they're currently offered.
>
> A sarcastic wow. I'll go out right now and actively stop supporting
> Overfiend and Eva. How?
ROTFL
Damien Roc
>
> In article <19981113061343...@ng131.aol.com>,
> LyabiBrave <lyabi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >As far as KOR/Nausicaa/Barefoot Gen not being in the same genre, that's true
> >for the usual use of the term.
>
Didn't he tell us not to do that? (The whole geek/otaku thing)
Scott Schimmel
: andrew osmond wrote:
: > I'd suggest both Kenji's Spring and Whisper of the Heart as candidates:
: > any others?
: Kiki's Delivery Service? Maybe not... Still, by the above definition,
: Studio Ghibli seems to have some strong elements of "magical realism" in
: their films.
Kiki's might qualify. My Neighbor Totoro is definitely a contender.
You could make a good case for Porco Rosso and Pon Poko, too. The
others are mostly too 'magical' to qualify (except Omoide Poroporo,
which may be too 'realistic' to qualify. ^_^)
--
Scott Schimmel http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~schimmel/
Ex ignorantia ad sapientium; "You really aren't normal, are you?"
ex luce ad tenebras. -- Miki Koishikawa
M Arnold
First of all, I understand that "maniakku" can be just as derogatory as
"otaku," depending on the situation and the subject.
> Did it ever occur to you that people who can laugh at themselves
Who is laughing at who?
>images and can't tolerate any humor aimed at them? "No, I will *not*
>refer to myself as 'otaku,' and I will *not* refer to myself as
Some of us definitely won't call ourselves "otaku"--I'm not one, and I
wouldn't want to be. When friends call me that, they know they're teasing
and I know they're joking... if I didn't know that, I'd take it as an
insult and react accordingly. "I like some Japanese animation." I think
we'd be a lot safer sticking with something like that rather than swimming
around in the possible meanings of words most of us don't understand.
Mike A
Aaron White
>From: Damien Roc <dami...@whyweb.com>
>> We could have hours of fun debating whether 'devoid of artistic
merit'
>> entails 'stinky' (or even 'bad'), but it's probably off-topic.
>
>Still, it'd be fairly interesting, to say the least... Anyone remember
>Epsilon (Aaron Peori) and Aaron White debating about "merit in anime"?
Actually, I'm hoping everyone will forget it...
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Doug Jacobs
> In article <19981113061343...@ng131.aol.com>,
> LyabiBrave <lyabi...@aol.com> wrote:
>>As far as KOR/Nausicaa/Barefoot Gen not being in the same genre, that's true
>>for the usual use of the term.
> Oh, great. He's reinventing the language.
That's what *all* trollish diatribe "debaters" do - argue semantics and
niggly points of what you meant by that "is."
If he wants to play niggly-arguments, he'll have to first define what he
means by "anime", as this word has very different meaning depending upon
what nationality the speaker is. In Japan, anime means cartoons. In Japan,
everything from Mickey Mouse to Evangelion to Urotsukidoji is anime. In
the US...
As for his arguments regarding anime being devoid of "artistic merit", the
only people I've encountered who wish to discuss such things are art majors.
So, the question now becomes, do you *really* want to have yet another
arguement about "what is 'art'" or the artistic merit of pop-culture?
There are those who think pop-culture has artistic value, those who don't,
and those who feel that computer graphics and photography are not art at
all.
All I see is someone who's taken a few classes and is trying to strut his
stuff with his overly pompous academic posturing in his vain attempt to look
"educated."
He has no point in posting. He knows his language will stir controversy
and strong responses. He also knows he's absolutely right, and that no one
will be able to convince him otherwise (despite any claims made to the
contrary.) He also states no purpose in his post. Is he trying to cause
change ("you should read more books!")? Rant about his frustrtaion ("why
can't all anime be as good as 'Citizen Kane'!?)? No, his only point is
to cause pointless arguments - which is no reason to post in the first
place. He has no point in posting.
stanlee
> there is a full fledged website titled Sega Otaku...). If you really
> think it is a fact that "otaku" must be a negative word even in America
> just because it happens to be an insult in Japan, then I suggest
> crawling out of YOUR hole and opening your eyes. This is America...we
> interpret and use words any damn way we see fit to.
Wait, wait.
You can't say that.
Imagine how those "translations" would look. ^_^
Laters. =)
Stan
----------
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \____|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ Stanlee Dometita sd0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
| ( _| | U of Rochester sta...@www.cif.rochester.edu
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | | www.cif.rochester.edu/~stanlee
/ \/ \| _ | |\ | uhura.cc.rochester.edu/~sd005e
/___/\/\___\__| |__|___| \____|
Greene
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Greene wrote:
>
> > there is a full fledged website titled Sega Otaku...). If you really
> > think it is a fact that "otaku" must be a negative word even in America
> > just because it happens to be an insult in Japan, then I suggest
> > crawling out of YOUR hole and opening your eyes. This is America...we
> > interpret and use words any damn way we see fit to.
>
> Wait, wait.
> You can't say that.
> Imagine how those "translations" would look. ^_^
You get the gist of what I am saying here...I'm not saying let's pull a
Carl Macek and rewrite the language, what I am saying is that the
"insult" associated with otaku has nothing to do with the meaning of the
word...it has become a negative term in Japan after incidents such as
the Aum cult, etc. Since, no such thing has happened in America (unless
you know of an American gang of killers brainwashing people with
Evangelion that I haven't heard of yet?) we don't neccessarily have to
label it as an insult. For instance, if I were to call you an "obsessive
anime fan" you probably would laugh and say "so are you", but in Japan
that same label would probably break out into fist-a-cuffs. Am I making
any sense?
- D'Ary
stanlee
>
> You get the gist of what I am saying here...I'm not saying let's pull a
> Carl Macek and rewrite the language, what I am saying is that the
> "insult" associated with otaku has nothing to do with the meaning of the
> word...it has become a negative term in Japan after incidents such as
> the Aum cult, etc. Since, no such thing has happened in America (unless
> you know of an American gang of killers brainwashing people with
> Evangelion that I haven't heard of yet?) we don't neccessarily have to
> label it as an insult. For instance, if I were to call you an "obsessive
> anime fan" you probably would laugh and say "so are you", but in Japan
> that same label would probably break out into fist-a-cuffs. Am I making
> any sense?
No, it won't.
The Japanese respect for harmony (Wa or something)
sort of thing.
Yeah, yeah, I'm just being difficult.
I got ya the 1st time around. ^_^
LyabiBrave
means by "anime", as this word has very different meaning depending upon what
nationality the speaker is. In Japan, anime means cartoons. In Japan,
everything from Mickey Mouse to Evangelion to Urotsukidoji is anime. In the
US..."
I made this very distinction. While I myself have never heard the Japanese
call Disney works "anime," I am perfectly willing to accept that they do. For
them, it's a medium.
The reason you trail off on the U.S. definition is because it clearly does not
match the Japanese one. I'm sure there's the occasional fan who would say that
South Park is anime--but they will be few and far between. Obviously, part of
what makes it anime for most people is the fact that it was made in Japan.
I admit that trying to replace the word "medium" with the word "genre" wasn't
very bright, and bends the English language, which is exactly what I was trying
to avoid. Sorry about that. But I do think that an honest analysis of how
Americans use the term "anime" will show that it is NOT synonymous with
"medium." Using "Japanime" or "Japanimation" is in fact much more rigorously
correct, since it explicitly uses the term "anime" in the same manner the
Japanese would.
This point, by the way, is hardly my main one. I merely wanted to try to
introduce some thought into the willy-nilly application of labels. This was
part of that endeavor, whose purpose was solely to raise the level of
discussion. If I slaughtered a few sacred cows on the way to this destination,
then perhaps I should be reminded there are other ways to get attention. But
certainly I should not be condemned as exhibiting "overly pompous academic
posturing." (For one thing, that would only be the case if it were posturing,
and not a coherent invitation to discussion.)
"As for his arguments regarding anime being devoid of "artistic merit", the
only people I've encountered who wish to discuss such things are art majors."
So the implicit conclusion here is that art majors should not be allowed to
speak? Or that they are somehow inferior and their opinions are to be
disregarded? Welcome to the warm, open-minded online community.
I'm not an art major, by the way.
"So, the question now becomes, do you *really* want to have yet another
arguement about "what is 'art'" or the artistic merit of pop-culture?
There are those who think pop-culture has artistic value, those who don't, and
those who feel that computer graphics and photography are not art at all."
My answer to your question: Yes. So the question now becomes: DO you think it
is a complete waste of time to talk about art, and the comparative merits of
various works?
Though your tone above indicates you agree it's a waste of time, I'd wager
that's not how you conduct your life. This is equivalent to saying that all
movies are equally good, just different. If that's the case, why bother
watching anime? Why bother watching videotapes at all? Just turn on the TV.
Since everyone conducts their personal audience events (reading, watching,
listening, etc.) as if there is something called quality, I believe it is of
interest to determine what this nebulous characteristic is, and to what extent
it inheres in different works. It's a very simple idea, and worthy of as much
respect and consideration as yours.
I mean, if we assume all ideas are equally good.
"He has no point in posting. He knows his language will stir controversy
and strong responses. He also knows he's absolutely right, and that no one
will be able to convince him otherwise (despite any claims made to the
contrary.) He also states no purpose in his post. Is he trying to cause
change ("you should read more books!")? Rant about his frustrtaion ("why
can't all anime be as good as 'Citizen Kane'!?)? No, his only point is
to cause pointless arguments - which is no reason to post in the first
place. He has no point in posting."
First, as a matter of courtesy, you may wish to address your remarks to me,
rather than about me. I realize it is much easier to convince an audience you
know agrees with you, but practice in preaching to the unconverted is good for
you.
Second, I do believe I did explicitly state my main reason for posting.
However, since I don't have my text in front of me, I'll assume I'm mistaken,
for which I apologize. The primary reason was (and remains) this:
I like some anime. Most of it is not any good. The things that are not any
good nevertheless continue to hold fan interest. This results in a feedback
loop to the producers, encouraging them to continue making this lesser
material. The percentage of good anime goes down, and my enjoyment with it. I
wish to change this by altering the output of the feedback loop.
If you agree or disagree, how does that mean I have "no point in posting?"
What is *your* point in posting? Surely it is to share information and opinions
which others are not privy to because you generated them. Of course, sometimes
it may be simply to answer matters of fact. But the acronym "IMHO" would never
have evolved if newsgroups and other online communities barred personal
leanings.
As a minor quibble, though I heartily encourage everyone to read more books, I
have never and will never say "Why can't all anime be as good as Citizen Kane?"
That would be an absurd expectation. I pointed out that Citizen Kane was made
for profit (though it didn't make one), and that therefore the mere fact that
anime is also produced in order to make money does not preclude artistic
achievement. The question then is, "So why is most of it bad anyway?"
All of a genre/type/medium cannot be excellent. Such uniformity contravenes
standard distribution probabilities. But there is no scientific or artistic law
that says where the mean level of achievement is set. Even a tiny improvement
in the mean describes a vast change across all samples in a population. That's
what I'm going for.
I am sorry if anything I said hurt any of you personally, though I STRONGLY
doubt that it did. However, I make no apologies if my statements contradict or
deny some of your artistic beliefs, because that is the very nature of
discussion. "Look, if I'm going to argue with you then I have to take up a
contrary position."
This whole genre/medium thing is ancillary. We'll assume I'm wrong, and that
"anime" as used by Americans is a mediumistic term. Okay? Now, let's please
talk about the value of some particular show, or some individual animation
technique, or something.
Discussion is what I'm after.
LyabiBrave
it was so I'm replying.
First, about "magical realism." It was a hastily chosen term, and suffers for
that; primarily, it is too generic, and indeed does lap over into the "fantasy"
realm (though not as much as some people think). So I agree that My Neighbor
Totoro might get in there, though the fact that Totoro and the catbus have an
actual existence apart from the kids' belief (how else would the corncob show
up?) mitigates against that. Porco Rosso is less close, and Poro Poro doesn't
even approach magical realism.
However, let's grant that magical realist anime exists. (By the way, magical
realism does occur outside literature; look at Dali's religious paintings for
an example. Heck, look at religion.) This doesn't change the alarming nature of
the art. Don't you see that the counterexamples are few and far between?
Obvously, that will be true of any mainstream phenomenon like anime. But those
works with strong personal vision are mostly carried out by a *tiny* handful of
individuals like Miyazaki, Anno, Oshii, Taro, Dezaki, etc. You could kill ten
people and essentially eliminate everything creatively rich in anime; this is
worrisome.
I agree that Americans have seized upon "otaku" as a positive term meaning
"obsessive fan." (Let's ignore whether "obsessive fan" is in actuality
positive.) I disagree with the assessment, which seems current, that "otaku"
only has negative connotations because of Aum Shinrikyo. In mainstream manga
(which are far, *far* more universal than anime), anime otaku are depicted in
much the same negatively stereotyped way that adult comic book fans are here in
the states. And for the same reason: the art they obsess over is designed for
adolescents, and they remain in an adolescent mindset into their adult years.
Of course not everyone who likes anime is a geek. But why say "I'm an anime
fan--and proud of it!" That indicates you like *all* anime, or a major portion
of it. And such a view would *hardly* be something to be proud of, since the
major portion of anime is puerile junk. I recently heard from a friend of an
informal overview in Anime Hasshin's The Rose newsletter which stated that some
40% of anime titles were hentai (since this is secondhand news, please take it
with a grain of salt; but even if the figure is half as high, I think my
comments remain true, if weaker). This is hardly surprising news; about 40% of
the video market in the USA is pornography. But it does indicate that claiming
to "like anime" is tantamount to agreeing with the (admittedly overgeneralized
and underthought) common perception "Ah, you like sex and violence."
Personally, I never volunteer "I like anime!" because that's the same as
saying "I like Hollywood movies!" and consequently just as silly. If someone
asks me if I like anime, my likely response will be: "Yeah, a very small
portion of it. The good stuff."
LyabiBrave
notions determining most of the approach. The same is not at all true of
Evangelion. While it does contain Anno's confused personal philosophy at
points, for the most part it's a giant robot show. With all the tie-in and
merchandising that indicates.
Ever been to a con where every dealer was selling a wide variety of Angel's
Egg toys?
Damien Roc
>
> Oh yeah, one other thing. I agree that Angel's Egg was created with artistic
> notions determining most of the approach. The same is not at all true of
> Evangelion. While it does contain Anno's confused personal philosophy at
> points, for the most part it's a giant robot show. With all the tie-in and
> merchandising that indicates.
Oh. Right. So tie ins automatically make something crap? (Are you
implying that commercial success is a detriment when determining the
artistic merit of something?)
> Ever been to a con where every dealer was selling a wide variety of Angel's
> Egg toys?
No. But you're truly confusing the difference between the marketability
of a show (which EVA has a lot of and Angel's Egg has almost none) and
the content of a show (which both, despite your empty assertions,
contain a lot of philosophical posturing.)
Please, if you've think EVA isn't artistically merit-worthy, point out
WHY, and I'll be glad to discuss it with you (as would a number of
others, I'm sure.) But right now, all you're doing is coming across like
a troll.
Damien Roc
>
> "If he wants to play niggly-arguments, he'll have to first define what he
> means by "anime", as this word has very different meaning depending upon what
> nationality the speaker is. In Japan, anime means cartoons. In Japan,
> everything from Mickey Mouse to Evangelion to Urotsukidoji is anime. In the
> US..."
>
> I made this very distinction. While I myself have never heard the Japanese
> call Disney works "anime," I am perfectly willing to accept that they do. For
> them, it's a medium.
> The reason you trail off on the U.S. definition is because it clearly does not
> match the Japanese one. I'm sure there's the occasional fan who would say that
> South Park is anime--but they will be few and far between. Obviously, part of
> what makes it anime for most people is the fact that it was made in Japan.
> I admit that trying to replace the word "medium" with the word "genre" wasn't
> very bright, and bends the English language, which is exactly what I was trying
> to avoid. Sorry about that. But I do think that an honest analysis of how
> Americans use the term "anime" will show that it is NOT synonymous with
> "medium." Using "Japanime" or "Japanimation" is in fact much more rigorously
> correct, since it explicitly uses the term "anime" in the same manner the
> Japanese would.
Point 1: Languages have a tendency to take in words from other languages
and use them in a new manner. The English language use of anime is an
example of this. I doubt strongly that the vast majority of fans mean or
want to use the word as the Japanese do.
Point 2: It's more efficient to say "anime" than it is "Japanime" and
"Japanimation".
Point 3: "Japanimation" and (especially) "Japanime" have a nasty
tendency to be pronounced with the first syllable stressed so they sound
lik JAP anime and JAP animation. This could be construed as a racial
slur.
Point 4: Anime is an entirely accurate term to describe the sub-medium
of Japanese animation within the medium of animation.
> This point, by the way, is hardly my main one. I merely wanted to try to
> introduce some thought into the willy-nilly application of labels. This was
> part of that endeavor, whose purpose was solely to raise the level of
> discussion. If I slaughtered a few sacred cows on the way to this destination,
> then perhaps I should be reminded there are other ways to get attention. But
> certainly I should not be condemned as exhibiting "overly pompous academic
> posturing." (For one thing, that would only be the case if it were posturing,
> and not a coherent invitation to discussion.)
Dude, if you want a coherent invitation to discussion, try trimming off
a bit on the heavy words. It'll at least make you seem more open to
discussion, rather than coming across as "Nyah, nyah, I'm more
intellegent than you!" (which is the general feeling I get from reading
posts such as yours.)
> "As for his arguments regarding anime being devoid of "artistic merit", the
> only people I've encountered who wish to discuss such things are art majors."
>
> So the implicit conclusion here is that art majors should not be allowed to
> speak? Or that they are somehow inferior and their opinions are to be
> disregarded? Welcome to the warm, open-minded online community.
> I'm not an art major, by the way.
Actually, I think the implicit conclusion would be that "the majority of
us aren't art majors, and don't want to discuss such things". While this
may or may not be true, how you approached the subject is hardly going
to garner respect for your position.
> "So, the question now becomes, do you *really* want to have yet another
> arguement about "what is 'art'" or the artistic merit of pop-culture?
> There are those who think pop-culture has artistic value, those who don't, and
> those who feel that computer graphics and photography are not art at all."
>
> My answer to your question: Yes. So the question now becomes: DO you think it
> is a complete waste of time to talk about art, and the comparative merits of
> various works?
> Though your tone above indicates you agree it's a waste of time, I'd wager
> that's not how you conduct your life. This is equivalent to saying that all
> movies are equally good, just different. If that's the case, why bother
> watching anime? Why bother watching videotapes at all? Just turn on the TV.
> Since everyone conducts their personal audience events (reading, watching,
> listening, etc.) as if there is something called quality, I believe it is of
> interest to determine what this nebulous characteristic is, and to what extent
> it inheres in different works. It's a very simple idea, and worthy of as much
> respect and consideration as yours.
> I mean, if we assume all ideas are equally good.
I don't think that anyone has assumed that (not in this thread that I've
noticed anyway.) I'll point out that, for most people, there's a
difference between what they find as "good" and what they find as
entertaining. Taking a literary example, while Mark Costello's stories
about Murphy may be "good", I'd much rather spend my time reading Mike
Stackpole and Terry Goodkind.
The same is very true for anime. Entertaining anime (Tenchi Muyo) and
"good" anime (Angel's Egg) may not always coincide. And there's no
reason why they should, either.
Discussion, fine.
I'll disagree, strongly, with your assertion that an increase in the
types of popular anime will cause a decrease in the percentage of "good"
anime. In all likelyhood (as with just about any medium I can think of)
the percentage will stay the same. If more anime is produced, there will
be more good (and bad) anime produced. If more books are written, there
will be more good (and bad) books written. If anything, as a market
grows, the ammount of good (or at least refined) stuff released should
increase, percentage-wise, because things will have gotten more
competitive.
andrew osmond
> But those
>works with strong personal vision are mostly carried out by a *tiny* handful of
>individuals like Miyazaki, Anno, Oshii, Taro, Dezaki, etc. You could kill ten
>people and essentially eliminate everything creatively rich in anime; this is
>worrisome.
Okay, this could be an interesting thread, though it's probably been
done to death on this newsgroup. I'm no expert on the medium (!), but
I'm sure we can come up with far more than ten. Even in the Ghibli
sphere, you've got Isao Takahata, Tomomichi Mochizuki - whose fame
extends far beyond Ghibli - and the late Yoshifumi Kondo... oh, and if
we can count the umpteen excellent manga authors whose works can have
been converted (even in a 'workman' fashion) to anime, the numbers will
soar upwards.
> I disagree with the assessment, which seems current, that "otaku"
>only has negative connotations because of Aum Shinrikyo.
and the child-murderer Tsutomu Miyazaki (absolutely *no* relation to the
Ghibli director). I'll withdraw from the 'use of otaku' discussion here,
although there's some very useful info in Dreamland Japan, p43-9.
> the art they obsess over is designed for
>adolescents, and they remain in an adolescent mindset into their adult years.
Funny. That's exactly why I loathe and despise the poetry of John Keats.
(No reason for this comment, just put it in anyway.)
>I recently heard from a friend of an
>informal overview in Anime Hasshin's The Rose newsletter which stated that some
>40% of anime titles were hentai (since this is secondhand news, please take it
>with a grain of salt; but even if the figure is half as high, I think my
>comments remain true, if weaker).
That may be true in America, but the proportion is *much* lower in
Japan. Can someone check a copy of 'The Erotic Anime Movie Guide'
(Jonathan Clements and Helen McCarthy)? I think they put the figure *in
recent years* as round 10-15%. And bear in mind, the hentai industry
didn't really exist before '83 and OAVs. True, there were some erotic
titles before then - including a couple from Tezuka! - but the first
twenty-odd years of anime were fairly hentai-free.
> Personally, I never volunteer "I like anime!" because that's the same as
>saying "I like Hollywood movies!" and consequently just as silly. If someone
>asks me if I like anime, my likely response will be: "Yeah, a very small
>portion of it. The good stuff."
That's the same response I give, and *many* other fans as well (though
maybe not most or certainly not all, I can't do a census.) But I'm sure
your idea of 'good stuff' will substantially differ from mine. See the
end of this post.
> I admit that trying to replace the word "medium" with the word "genre"
>wasn't
>very bright, and bends the English language, which is exactly what I was trying
>to avoid. Sorry about that. But I do think that an honest analysis of how
>Americans use the term "anime" will show that it is NOT synonymous with
>"medium."
Can you expand? I'm having trouble seeing this 'analysis.'
> So the question now becomes: DO you
>think it
>is a complete waste of time to talk about art, and the comparative merits of
>various works?
> Though your tone above indicates you agree it's a waste of time, I'd
>wager
>that's not how you conduct your life. This is equivalent to saying that all
>movies are equally good, just different. If that's the case, why bother
>watching anime? Why bother watching videotapes at all? Just turn on the TV.
> Since everyone conducts their personal audience events (reading,
>watching,
>listening, etc.) as if there is something called quality, I believe it is of
>interest to determine what this nebulous characteristic is, and to what extent
>it inheres in different works. It's a very simple idea, and worthy of as much
>respect and consideration as yours.
(Skip this para if you want to stay on-topic.)
Soundbite version of my aesthetic views, such as they are: I don't
believe in art. I don't believe in an objective 'quality,' 'feature,'
(or bundle therof) of a work that makes me a spiritually better person.
I have my tastes, as does everyone, and I'm willing to believe that
certain works are immoral if they actively promote and glorify rape,
murder, genocide, etc, although that takes you down endless roads
involving catharsis, irony etc. Suffice to say, I'd probably burn every
negative of Natural Born Killers (and wouldn't give a damn about
'artistic merits') before I got near the likes of Overfiend.
OK, you can come back now.
>
> First, as a matter of courtesy, you may wish to address your remarks to
>me,
>rather than about me.
I wouldn't describe his past posts as courteous. Arrogant, yes, preachy,
yes, couteous... nah. I believe in the principle of mutual contempt;
treat us as unthinking idiots and we're more than entitled to return the
favour.
> I like some anime. Most of it is not any good. The things that are not
>any
>good nevertheless continue to hold fan interest. This results in a feedback
>loop to the producers, encouraging them to continue making this lesser
>material. The percentage of good anime goes down, and my enjoyment with it. I
>wish to change this by altering the output of the feedback loop.
See my past note on selfish subtexts, and the begged question of how a
bunch of foreign fans can do *anything* to change this.
> We'll assume I'm wrong, and
>that
>"anime" as used by Americans is a mediumistic term. Okay? Now, let's please
>talk about the value of some particular show, or some individual animation
>technique, or something.
> Discussion is what I'm after.
Maybe next time; someone else start the ball rolling if they can be
bothered. I plastered my raves re Miyazaki over two recent ANIMERICAs,
so I think it's someone else's turn.
--
andrew osmond
Pedro Colman-Arrellaga
> I like some anime. Most of it is not any good. The things that are not any
>good nevertheless continue to hold fan interest. This results in a feedback
>loop to the producers, encouraging them to continue making this lesser
>material. The percentage of good anime goes down, and my enjoyment with it. I
>wish to change this by altering the output of the feedback loop.
You continue to espose this as your reason for posting what you do,
yet you fail to address how you expect this change to occur by
addressing a foreign audience that is a secondary market at best.
So are you
a) hopelessly naive
b) completely misguided
b) the ubertroll
d) all of the above
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Colman-Arréllaga | Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so
hiss...@cris.com | many more believers than thinkers.
hiss...@concentric.net | - Bruce Calvert
------------------------|
| Do I contradict myself?
"The Typhoid Mary of | Very well then, I contradict myself,
the shipping business" | (I am large, I contain multitudes).
| - Walt Whitman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerisu Purity Control
> Of course not everyone who likes anime is a geek. But why say "I'm an anime
> fan--and proud of it!" That indicates you like *all* anime, or a major portion
> of it. And such a view would *hardly* be something to be proud of, since the
> informal overview in Anime Hasshin's The Rose newsletter which stated that some
> 40% of anime titles were hentai (since this is secondhand news, please take it
> with a grain of salt; but even if the figure is half as high, I think my
> the video market in the USA is pornography. But it does indicate that claiming
> to "like anime" is tantamount to agreeing with the (admittedly overgeneralized
> and underthought) common perception "Ah, you like sex and violence."
Not quite. Saying that you're an anime fan is a parallel to saying that you're
a movie buff. You don't necessarily have to like EVERYTHING, but you definitely
appreciate the quality works. I'm pretty sure a reasonably intelligent person
would be able to recognize the distinction without the need for clarification.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Anime and hentai are not one and the same, just
as movies and pornography are separate as well. Imagine how ridiculous someone
calling all movie buffs "porn-addicts" would sound, and you might have a small
idea of how I view your argument.
Ja mata,
--
______________________________________________________________
.| Kerisu Jurio - kerisu....@usa.net - DJ Purity Control |.
.oO| MDC Industries: http://homepages.infoseek.com/~mindcorp |Oo.
.oOOO| On sale from CPM: Revolutionary Valley-Girl Utena. Shudder. |OOOo.
~~~~`--------------------------------------------------------------'~~~~
Innpchan
In article <7KZA2GAc...@ozma.demon.co.uk>, andrew osmond
<and...@ozma.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>Maybe next time; someone else start the ball rolling if they can be
>bothered. I plastered my raves re Miyazaki over two recent ANIMERICAs,
>so I think it's someone else's turn.
>--
>andrew osmond
And well plastered they were. First time I've bought two consecutive issues of
Animerica since... well, ever.
thepig
(Actually, three in a row due to Benjamin Wright's Eva article in the previous
issue)
***
Did anyone else see "Mad About You" Tuesday nite? If so, don't you think Helen
Hunt would make a GREAT Rally Vincent? (Blonde version, of course...)
***
C.J. Scott --the pig
Damien Roc
>
> stupid ideas better than others.
Or, to state a modified Sturgeon's Law:
90% of everything is crap, but 30% of what remains is "good" crap, and
therefore is worth experiencing. (Determining what constitutes "good"
crap is up to each individual.)
> Gall Force: True, it ends in a venerable science fiction cliche and the
> all-girl civilisation makes no sense. (And it violated conservation of mass)
> But there's a lot more to it. It's the only time I saw a shower scene that
> meant anything more than an opportunity to show a naked girl. And I almost
> cried at the end.
Point. I'll honestly say that I enjoyed 2 and 3 more, but 1 was probably
the best in the series.
Greene
>
> I agree that Americans have seized upon "otaku" as a positive term meaning
> "obsessive fan." (Let's ignore whether "obsessive fan" is in actuality
> positive.) I disagree with the assessment, which seems current, that "otaku"
> only has negative connotations because of Aum Shinrikyo. In mainstream manga
> (which are far, *far* more universal than anime), anime otaku are depicted in
> much the same negatively stereotyped way that adult comic book fans are here in
> the states.
It *IS* due to external reasons that anime otaku have been stereotyped
this way in Japan...and all of this has taken place in the last 10
years. It started with a huge "otaku" going on a killing spree trying to
imitate some of the anime shows he liked...and then it has continued
with recent events like the Aum cult, etc. Society loves to stereotype
people...so as soon as the japanese mainstream saw a couple of crazy
people like this stiring up crap calling themselves "otaku", EVERYONE
adopts the negative stereotypical view. In other words, people stopped
associating otaku with "obsessive anime fan"...they started associating
the word with "crazy murderers and cult members." Keeping this in mind
you can plainly see why the average Japanese fan gets insulted by the
word (because they AREN'T murderers and cultists...at least I hope
not)...we haven't had these events take place in America, but I am sure
if they did otaku (the name) would get an alternate label as well for
something it was never intended to mean. Until then though your argument
isn't really valid...
> And for the same reason: the art they obsess over is designed for
> adolescents, and they remain in an adolescent mindset into their adult years.
SOME of the art is designed for adolescents. In fact, the BEST works are
designed for adolescents (such as Miyazaki's films). This (again) tells
me that you are not seeing things clearly...it's like the teenager who
thinks that a film automatically isn't going to be any good because it
is rated "PG" instead of "R". Just because "adult" aspects like heads
being lopped off or tons of sex don't occur doesn't make THE CONTENT
automatically childish or immature in any way. You were be hard pressed
to find any film (American or foreign) that can match the complexity of
Patlabor 2, Wings of Honneamise, or Mononoke Hime...if you still contend
that these films are "dumbed down" to reach a 7 year old audience then
what you are esentially saying is that 7 year old japanese kids are the
most sophisticated film watchers on the planet.
> Of course not everyone who likes anime is a geek. But why say "I'm an anime
> fan--and proud of it!"
Gee...I dunno, because it's TRUE!
> That indicates you like *all* anime, or a major portion
> of it.
I do enjoy a major portion of the anime that I WATCH. Your logic is
flawed because it assumes that I am watching EVERY SINGLE animated work
coming out of Japan and that after all of that I like EVERYTHING. That
statement is simply incredibly stupid! You can be a baseball fan and not
like every single team and watch every single game, can't you? How about
enjoying boat riding without going over ever single square inch of the
ocean? The problem I have with your posts is that you insult anime fans
as being these adolescent, intellectually inferior children and then
what I recieve in return are these warped explanations that are SEVERLY
flawed. No...percentage wise I do not like a major portion of all the
anime released, but I have shelves upon shelves filled with anime I
enjoy. Because I enjoy it...I am a "fan" of the work in general and then
I keep tabs on it so that I can see the good stuff.
> This is hardly surprising news; about 40% of
> the video market in the USA is pornography. But it does indicate that claiming
> to "like anime" is tantamount to agreeing with the (admittedly overgeneralized
> and underthought) common perception "Ah, you like sex and violence."
Great...now this sound like the way the general media misleads the
public. One second you are saying that anime fans grow up childish
because the target is for kids...then the next paragraph you are
esentially saying anime fans are nothing but sick adults that crave "sex
and violence." Two very serperate (and painfully misguided) perceptions
you have of anime fans that you have here...I mean, you should at least
be able to perserve continuity between paragraphs...
For the record, I have watched hundreds upon hundreds of anime shows and
maybe TWO of them would be considered "Hentai" (and they aren't
hardcore...Wicked City is one that comes to mind and it had an
interesting plot). Being an anime fan ISN'T a statistic...I know some
people that REALLY enjoy the big movies like GITS and Akira but simply
don't have access to a lot of other shows. So what? Does that mean they
automatically have to "like" anime less compared to a "True otaku" that
sees hundreds of shows? It's funny...but your logic comes across much
like the very elitist otaku that you intend to insult. I don't see it
that way, anime fans are people that like watching japanese animation.
Period.
> Personally, I never volunteer "I like anime!" because that's the same as
> saying "I like Hollywood movies!" and consequently just as silly.
What's so silly about it? After all, if someone asked us what we liked
and we DIDN'T have catagories like these to put things under we would be
here all day listing every single movie we have ever enjoyed...
> asks me if I like anime, my likely response will be: "Yeah, a very small
> portion of it. The good stuff."
Well DUH!!! OF COURSE you only like the stuff you consider good...how
many time have you "liked" a movie that you didn't enjoy?
- D'Ary
James King
David Johnston wrote in message <36552F...@telusplanet.net>...
<Snip a good part of CS's mostly incoherent rant>
>> certainly I should not be condemned as exhibiting "overly pompous
academic
>> posturing." (For one thing, that would only be the case if it were
posturing,
>> and not a coherent invitation to discussion.)
>
>It's amazing how much a coherent invitation to discussion can read like
>flamebait.
'Spescially when it's simply, well, '"overly pompous academic posturing."'
<Another big snip.>
>> "So, the question now becomes, do you *really* want to have yet another
>> arguement about "what is 'art'" or the artistic merit of pop-culture?
>> There are those who think pop-culture has artistic value, those who
don't, and
>> those who feel that computer graphics and photography are not art at
all."
>>
>> My answer to your question: Yes. So the question now becomes: DO
you think it
>> is a complete waste of time to talk about art, and the comparative merits
of
>> various works?
>> Though your tone above indicates you agree it's a waste of time,
I'd wager
>> that's not how you conduct your life. This is equivalent to saying that
all
>> movies are equally good, just different. If that's the case, why bother
>> watching anime? Why bother watching videotapes at all? Just turn on the
TV.
>
>The built in assumption here is that "art" equates to "worth watching".
That
>may be true for you, but it isn't true for me.
Depends on your definition of 'art'. The few times I actually use that word,
I prefer to make it value neutral. I think most people do. Also, I include
Pop Culture, which I'm sure fewer people do, but I find the distinction
between 'High Art' (Feh! Pompous term. Impossible to make it value neutral,
thus I refuse to use it.) and Pop Culture(Generally used as an insult, but
not inherently so.) highly offensive. Good art is good art, whether it's a
pinting or an anime. Bad art is bad art, whether it's a painting or an
anime.
>It's true that some things can be just about universally identified as bad.
>Good is far trickier. What you have to ask is "good for what?"
>Even "bad" may just be "good for a laugh".
>
>> Since everyone conducts their personal audience events (reading,
watching,
>> listening, etc.) as if there is something called quality, I believe it is
of
>
>Everyone? Does that include the faithful fans of WWF wrestling? Do they
>watch it because it's so good?
Answer, so we don't lose Mr. Smith: Only if you define good as what
entertains you.
<Big Time Snippage.>
>> As a minor quibble, though I heartily encourage everyone to read
more books, I
>> have never and will never say "Why can't all anime be as good as Citizen
Kane?"
Which is an incredibly bad movie, BTW. Just had to get that out of my
system.
>> I am sorry if anything I said hurt any of you personally, though
I STRONGLY
I doubt that.
>> doubt that it did. However, I make no apologies if my statements
contradict or
>> deny some of your artistic beliefs, because that is the very nature of
>> discussion. "Look, if I'm going to argue with you then I have to take up
a
>> contrary position."
To Mr. Smith:
Funny, you don't seem to be extending the people here the same courtesy you
expect us to treat you with. You come in here stating (I'm paraphrasing, I
admit) 'Almost all anime is crap. Anime therefore isn't art, since,
obviously, for art to be art, it's got to be like a painting, and paintings
are all good. If you disagree with me, you're intellectually inferior, and
wouldn't know 'good' if it bit you on the ass.' (Re-read some of your
postings if you don't know where I got this.
>Gall Force: True, it ends in a venerable science fiction cliche and the
>all-girl civilisation makes no sense. (And it violated conservation of
mass)
>But there's a lot more to it. It's the only time I saw a shower scene that
>meant anything more than an opportunity to show a naked girl. And I almost
>cried at the end.
Same reaction I had. When the boy was born, I spent several minutes trying
to figure out how the Solonoids reproduced before this, since I doubt it was
parthenogenisis(Which seems likely for the apparently mostly liquid
Paranoids.). However, cliche's and bad science don't make a bad work. Look
at Star Trek, Star Wars, or 90% of the SF ever produced. (More like 95% if
it was created in the first half of this century, or for the 'Big Screen'.
Arnold Kim
> I admit that trying to replace the word "medium" with the word "genre" wasn't
> very bright, and bends the English language, which is exactly what I was trying
> to avoid. Sorry about that. But I do think that an honest analysis of how
> Americans use the term "anime" will show that it is NOT synonymous with
> "medium." Using "Japanime" or "Japanimation" is in fact much more rigorously
> correct, since it explicitly uses the term "anime" in the same manner the
> Japanese would.
Of course, the typical american views anime as aviolent sex cartoons, or
kiddie fare, at best. You want to limit what you have to say to these
perspectives?
> "So, the question now becomes, do you *really* want to have yet another
> arguement about "what is 'art'" or the artistic merit of pop-culture?
> There are those who think pop-culture has artistic value, those who don't, and
> those who feel that computer graphics and photography are not art at all."
>
> My answer to your question: Yes. So the question now becomes: DO you think it
> is a complete waste of time to talk about art, and the comparative merits of
> various works?
Not necessarily. Discussion of artistic merit can provide quite a bit of
insight to the people involved and learn a great deal about the subject.
Expand our horizons, so to speak.
However, it also has its limits, and those limits are drawn by personal
preference. These differences in opinion can lead to needless debates.
True, both can happen, but I'd bet more on the latter than the former.
> Though your tone above indicates you agree it's a waste of time, I'd wager
> that's not how you conduct your life. This is equivalent to saying that all
> movies are equally good, just different. If that's the case, why bother
> watching anime? Why bother watching videotapes at all? Just turn on the TV.
Because personal preferences come into play. What is "good" isn't defined
objectively- rather, it is up to the individual to decide. Objectively, nothing
is either "good or "bad"- that is all up to how you perceive it personally. If I
think show X is great, and you think it sucks, whose to say who's right or
wrong? The only way you can judge a production of media objectively is
on the basis of technical elements- things that can be measured and
calculated.
> Since everyone conducts their personal audience events (reading, watching,
> listening, etc.) as if there is something called quality, I believe it is of
> interest to determine what this nebulous characteristic is, and to what extent
> it inheres in different works. It's a very simple idea, and worthy of as much
> respect and consideration as yours.
> I mean, if we assume all ideas are equally good.
We do have a number of objective standards for quality. But even then, it's
up to the individual to judge whether those standards are met or not.
> As a minor quibble, though I heartily encourage everyone to read more books, I
> have never and will never say "Why can't all anime be as good as Citizen Kane?"
> That would be an absurd expectation. I pointed out that Citizen Kane was made
> for profit (though it didn't make one), and that therefore the mere fact that
> anime is also produced in order to make money does not preclude artistic
> achievement. The question then is, "So why is most of it bad anyway?"
Because producing something of the highest quality and balancing artistic
merit and making it profitable is something that's hard to do. Basically, in
order to accomplish that, an anime has to be like Citizen Kane- in that it
subversively tells its story in a way that's palatable to the audience. THat's
hard to do.
Arnold Kim
Writing a paper on Kane
David Johnston
>
> "If he wants to play niggly-arguments, he'll have to first define what he
> means by "anime", as this word has very different meaning depending upon what
> nationality the speaker is. In Japan, anime means cartoons. In Japan,
> everything from Mickey Mouse to Evangelion to Urotsukidoji is anime. In the
> US..."
>
> I made this very distinction. While I myself have never heard the Japanese
> call Disney works "anime," I am perfectly willing to accept that they do. For
> them, it's a medium.
> The reason you trail off on the U.S. definition is because it clearly does not
> match the Japanese one. I'm sure there's the occasional fan who would say that
> South Park is anime--but they will be few and far between. Obviously, part of
> what makes it anime for most people is the fact that it was made in Japan.
> I admit that trying to replace the word "medium" with the word "genre" wasn't
> very bright, and bends the English language, which is exactly what I was trying
> to avoid. Sorry about that. But I do think that an honest analysis of how
> Americans use the term "anime" will show that it is NOT synonymous with
> "medium."
<Shrug> It's not a genre either.
Using "Japanime" or "Japanimation" is in fact much more rigorously
> correct, since it explicitly uses the term "anime" in the same manner the
> Japanese would.
It's also a bad idea to go around referring to the Japanese as "Japs".
Besides, given the Japanese use of "maniac" I see no reason why we should
go out of our way to use words exactly as the Japanese do.
> This point, by the way, is hardly my main one. I merely wanted to try to
> introduce some thought into the willy-nilly application of labels. This was
> part of that endeavor, whose purpose was solely to raise the level of
> discussion. If I slaughtered a few sacred cows on the way to this destination,
> then perhaps I should be reminded there are other ways to get attention. But
> certainly I should not be condemned as exhibiting "overly pompous academic
> posturing." (For one thing, that would only be the case if it were posturing,
> and not a coherent invitation to discussion.)
It's amazing how much a coherent invitation to discussion can read like
flamebait.
> "As for his arguments regarding anime being devoid of "artistic merit", the
> only people I've encountered who wish to discuss such things are art majors."
>
> So the implicit conclusion here is that art majors should not be allowed to
> speak? Or that they are somehow inferior and their opinions are to be
> disregarded? Welcome to the warm, open-minded online community.
Who ever claimed the online community was warm and open-minded?
Quite to the contrary it is generally more opinionated and cantankerous
than the public at large. Most of the warm and open-minded people
gravitate to lists anyways, where you can make a more personal connection.
> I'm not an art major, by the way.
Senator McCarthy: Are you now, or have you ever been, an art major?
> "So, the question now becomes, do you *really* want to have yet another
> arguement about "what is 'art'" or the artistic merit of pop-culture?
> There are those who think pop-culture has artistic value, those who don't, and
> those who feel that computer graphics and photography are not art at all."
>
> My answer to your question: Yes. So the question now becomes: DO you think it
> is a complete waste of time to talk about art, and the comparative merits of
> various works?
> Though your tone above indicates you agree it's a waste of time, I'd wager
> that's not how you conduct your life. This is equivalent to saying that all
> movies are equally good, just different. If that's the case, why bother
> watching anime? Why bother watching videotapes at all? Just turn on the TV.
The built in assumption here is that "art" equates to "worth watching". That
may be true for you, but it isn't true for me.
It's true that some things can be just about universally identified as bad.
Good is far trickier. What you have to ask is "good for what?"
Even "bad" may just be "good for a laugh".
> Since everyone conducts their personal audience events (reading, watching,
> listening, etc.) as if there is something called quality, I believe it is of
Everyone? Does that include the faithful fans of WWF wrestling? Do they
watch it because it's so good?
> interest to determine what this nebulous characteristic is, and to what extent
> it inheres in different works. It's a very simple idea, and worthy of as much
> respect and consideration as yours.
> I mean, if we assume all ideas are equally good.
We don't think that all ideas are equally good. We just like some
stupid ideas better than others.
> "He has no point in posting. He knows his language will stir controversy
> and strong responses. He also knows he's absolutely right, and that no one
> will be able to convince him otherwise (despite any claims made to the
> contrary.) He also states no purpose in his post. Is he trying to cause
> change ("you should read more books!")? Rant about his frustrtaion ("why
> can't all anime be as good as 'Citizen Kane'!?)? No, his only point is
> to cause pointless arguments - which is no reason to post in the first
> place. He has no point in posting."
>
> First, as a matter of courtesy, you may wish to address your remarks to me,
> rather than about me. I realize it is much easier to convince an audience you
> know agrees with you, but practice in preaching to the unconverted is good for
> you.
> Second, I do believe I did explicitly state my main reason for posting.
> However, since I don't have my text in front of me, I'll assume I'm mistaken,
> for which I apologize. The primary reason was (and remains) this:
> I like some anime. Most of it is not any good. The things that are not any
> good nevertheless continue to hold fan interest. This results in a feedback
> loop to the producers, encouraging them to continue making this lesser
> material. The percentage of good anime goes down, and my enjoyment with it. I
> wish to change this by altering the output of the feedback loop.
The tactic you have chosen to achieve this goal is liable to be highly
ineffective. First, you open up with vague blanket denunciations which
boil down to "anime is mostly crap". To which our responses can only be
either "No it isn't" or "Yeah. So?" depending on the cutoff point where
we start defining things as crap. You leaven this insight with
references to Fauvism and tropes which tend to imply that whatever it is
you want anime to be, it probably wouldn't be something that would
interest me. I doubt that this is an effective form of propaganda.
> As a minor quibble, though I heartily encourage everyone to read more books, I
> have never and will never say "Why can't all anime be as good as Citizen Kane?"
> That would be an absurd expectation. I pointed out that Citizen Kane was made
> for profit (though it didn't make one), and that therefore the mere fact that
> anime is also produced in order to make money does not preclude artistic
> achievement. The question then is, "So why is most of it bad anyway?"
> All of a genre/type/medium cannot be excellent. Such uniformity contravenes
> standard distribution probabilities. But there is no scientific or artistic law
> that says where the mean level of achievement is set. Even a tiny improvement
> in the mean describes a vast change across all samples in a population. That's
> what I'm going for.
You can't get it. The domestic market still rules what gets produced in the
first place. You might be able to discourage the importation of mediocre
anime, but the odds are good that in the process you'd cut the percieved viability
of the best stuff in the marketplace. To the extent that you are able to
affect things, recommending the good is a far more effective way to raise the
median than is denigrating the bad. Or did you think that people didn't already
know that, say, "Cutey Honey" is a silly T&A action series with no great depth
of character?
> I am sorry if anything I said hurt any of you personally, though I STRONGLY
> doubt that it did. However, I make no apologies if my statements contradict or
> deny some of your artistic beliefs, because that is the very nature of
> discussion. "Look, if I'm going to argue with you then I have to take up a
> contrary position."
> This whole genre/medium thing is ancillary. We'll assume I'm wrong, and that
> "anime" as used by Americans is a mediumistic term. Okay? Now, let's please
> talk about the value of some particular show, or some individual animation
> technique, or something.
> Discussion is what I'm after.
You can only get out of a discussion what you put into it.
Dugan Chen
<19981113015328...@ng135.aol.com>...
> First, "anime" is not a medium. "Animation" is a medium; "anime" is a
genre.
I object. "Anime" is short for "Anime-shon." "Anime-shon" is Japanese for
"Animation".
> Again, no. When was the last time you saw a magical realist anime? Or
Romantic
> (as in the art movement, not the generic adjective)?
I don't know. When's the last time you saw a Kabuki-influenced Hollywood
film?
Anime is from Japan. Why should it copy a dead European genre?
> Better yet, how about a
> Fauvist anime? Fluxus? No, I didn't think so. These are all, I suppose,
> possibilities, but the general market trend and the forces of mainstream
> success which control anime conspire to reduce it all to
middle-of-the-road
> pablum. With great, though not quite total, success.
This is true for _every_ artistic medium.
Dugan Chen
>I said anime wasn't ground-breaking.
> That's a very different concept, susceptible to objective analysis. Which
will
> show you that like almost all popular artforms, anime is full of
reiterated
> cliches and dumbed-down "ideas."
Oh, I quite disagree. Akira and Nausicaa were certainly ground-breaking
when they came out. Macross Plus was released direct-to-video not
because of a low budget, but to support a 30 fps frame rate. Macross
Plus, Ghost in the Shell and Mononoke Hime feature increasingly
sophisticated attempts at combining cell animation and computer
animation.
> I will admit, however, that I should have pointed out I was talking
> about American use.
American use: all animation from Japan. Covers everything from Hello Kitty
to Urotskidoji.
> Though I personally have never seen the Japanese refer to
> the Lion King as "Disney anime," perhaps they do.
Well, do you know any Japanese?
> "As for "sweeping generaliztions" made by American fans of
> Try picking up Factsheet Five sometime...there are 'zines in there that
are
> Fauvist in content and intent, even though they don't use that term. I do
agree
> that anime is Jap pop culture, with one further narrowing: it is Japanese
> teenager pop culture. The vast majority of Japanese adults don't watch
or care
> about anime.
Oh, I quite disagree. The tentacle rape shows are certainly aimed at
overworked businessmen. _Porco Ross_ was also intended to be aimed
at businessmen.
Dugan Chen
> First, about "magical realism." It was a hastily chosen term, and
suffers for
> that; primarily, it is too generic, and indeed does lap over into the
"fantasy"
> realm (though not as much as some people think). So I agree that My
Neighbor
> Totoro might get in there, though the fact that Totoro and the catbus
have an
> actual existence apart from the kids' belief (how else would the corncob
show
> up?) mitigates against that. Porco Rosso is less close, and Poro Poro
doesn't
> even approach magical realism.
And who cares about magical realism?
> But those
> works with strong personal vision are mostly carried out by a *tiny*
handful of
> individuals like Miyazaki, Anno, Oshii, Taro, Dezaki, etc. You could kill
ten
> people and essentially eliminate everything creatively rich in anime;
this is
> worrisome.
Isn't this true for just about _every_ artistic medium?
Dugan Chen
Well since you claim to be _much_ more intelligent then anyone else on this
newsgroup, and _much_
more knowledgeable about art than any anime artist, then well, WHY DON'T
YOU MAKE YOUR OWN
ANIME FILM AND PROVE YOUR SUPERIORITY THAT WAY?
> Hi there.
> Yes, my point is "most anime is very stupid." You may remove "probably"
from
> your version. I'm glad you picked up on this...seeing as I said it
exactly that
> way a couple times. Let me reiterate:
> Most anime is bad. Stinky. Devoid of artistic merit.
> Your confusion stems from not knowing why I would say this. "But all pop
> culture is bad. Why rag on anime?" Because I'm in an anime newsgroup. If
we
> were talking about novels, that's what I'd be complaining about.
> I am goading you, yes. To not accept the anime that's out there, this
> pervasive crap you're being handed. When people talk of Evangelion as
though it
> were great, something is terribly wrong. Evangelion is the bare minimum
of what
> I accept as art.
> Yes, I know that anime is made for money. So was Citizen Kane.
> Does every show have to be that great? While it would be nice if they
were, it
> would be unrealistic to expect. I'll settle for "uses its brain every now
and
> again." Like Evangelion.
> Can something be enjoyable even if it doesn't probe the deepest recesses
of
> the human psyche? Of course. But if it can do both--and I think the
history of
> art shows it can--then why not demand such? I'm not saying we'll get it.
But if
> you never ask, so shall ye never receive.
> Saying that anime is a "genre" or a "medium" (and I still think, for
American
> use, it's closer to the first) does not change the content. And we all
seem to
> agree it's pretty lowest-common-denominator.
> As for my language being political--right again. So is everyone's, when
they
> use any terms which they value highly or very little. Those are the
things you
> care about, so you couch them in volatile, emotive terms. I hardly think
that's
> evil.
> I don't want you to agree with me. I want you to think, think, think.
And I
> want, more than anything, for fans to demand quality higher than what
they get.
> That means not supporting, in word or deed, what they're currently
offered.
> Why should I be committed to changing this tiny, insignificant portion
of
> global culture called anime? Because I like the good stuff. Yet when the
masses
> (used in that wacky way everyone does) accept crap, mostly crap gets
made. And
> that means I have to wade through more junk to get to the quality.
Wouldn't you
> rather the wading process were shorter, and the high-quality product
you're
> looking for more common? It can happen.
> But not if you just say, "Everything is how it is. Quit saying you're
> dissatisfied."
> Trust me, that's what Orwell meant.
Dugan Chen
> I admit that trying to replace the word "medium" with the word "genre"
wasn't
> very bright, and bends the English language, which is exactly what I was
trying
> to avoid. Sorry about that. But I do think that an honest analysis of how
> Americans use the term "anime" will show that it is NOT synonymous with
> "medium." Using "Japanime" or "Japanimation" is in fact much more
rigorously
> correct, since it explicitly uses the term "anime" in the same manner the
> Japanese would.
And what manner would that be? "Anime" is short for "anime-shon".
"Anime-shon" is Japanese for "animation".
> But
> certainly I should not be condemned as exhibiting "overly pompous
academic
> posturing." (For one thing, that would only be the case if it were
posturing,
> and not a coherent invitation to discussion.)
And you were postering.
> I like some anime. Most of it is not any good. The things that are not
any
> good nevertheless continue to hold fan interest. This results in a
feedback
> loop to the producers, encouraging them to continue making this lesser
> material. The percentage of good anime goes down, and my enjoyment with
it. I
> wish to change this by altering the output of the feedback loop.
Do you care to elucidate on _why_ you hold this subjective opinion?
> The question then is, "So why is most of it bad anyway?"
That would depend on why you subjectively consider it bad.
> This whole genre/medium thing is ancillary. We'll assume I'm wrong, and
that
> "anime" as used by Americans is a mediumistic term. Okay? Now, let's
please
> talk about the value of some particular show, or some individual
animation
> technique, or something.
Great self-contradictory way to end a post. "But please! I just want you to
know that
all anime sucks! You're not intelligent in my eye unless you agree with me!
So, uh,
can we talk about something specific now?" ;)
Dugan Chen
<364F6008...@whyweb.com>...
> You're point? If your asking for anime created with an artistic vision
> at the forefront, it does exist. Angel's Egg comes to mind. So does
> Evangelion.
Not to mention Robot Carnival and On Your Mark.
car...@isc.hokudai.ac.jp
lyabi...@aol.com (LyabiBrave) wrote:
--
> This is hardly surprising news; about 40% of
> the video market in the USA is pornography. But it does indicate that claiming
> to "like anime" is tantamount to agreeing with the (admittedly overgeneralized
> and underthought) common perception "Ah, you like sex and violence."
> asks me if I like anime, my likely response will be: "Yeah, a very small
> portion of it. The good stuff."
Think what you might of what this guy is saying, but I have to admit that
I agree with what he says here. I love "the good stuff" that comes out
of Japan in regards to animation. In my case it may be from GAINAX, GHIBLI,
Rumiko Takahashi, or Mamoru Oshii(a few examples). But, I am hesitant to say
"I like Anime" as we see it in the US because someone always says "ah, you
like that porno/violent stuff." And it's true, I hate Kitty, ADV, and the
respective branches of CPM for stooping to the lowest level.
I think they suck.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
LyabiBrave
Well since you claim to be _much_ more intelligent then anyone else on this
newsgroup, and _much_ more knowledgeable about art than any anime artist, then
well, WHY DON'T YOU MAKE YOUR OWN ANIME FILM AND PROVE YOUR SUPERIORITY THAT
WAY?
Hey, doofus...look back at what I wrote. Did I EVER claim that I am "much more
knowledgable about art than any anime artist"? No, I did not. I don't mind at
all if you vehemently disagree with my points, but please don't MAKE UP
arguments and then bash them. (I also never claimed to be more intelligent than
anyone else in the newsgroup. I honestly don't even think I am.)
As for making an anime film...I would if the production means were available
to me. As it is, I have to settle for making amateur live-action films shot on
video. I'm not going to say whether they're any good or not, because I might be
bad judge, but I am doing something.
If I don't make Hollywood movies, does that mean I'm not allowed to call "It's
Pat!" a worthless waste of celluloid? Of course not. I'm a consumer, and in a
market-driven economy my opinions are what count most. Just like yours.
My name is Christian Smith. I welcome your comments.
LyabiBrave
Oh, I quite disagree. Akira and Nausicaa were certainly ground-breaking
when they came out. Macross Plus was released direct-to-video not
because of a low budget, but to support a 30 fps frame rate. Macross
Plus, Ghost in the Shell and Mononoke Hime feature increasingly
sophisticated attempts at combining cell animation and computer
animation.
I apologize for not being clear enough. All the shows you mention here are
technically groudbreaking, some more than others. What I was referring to were
the writing and direction, not the technical accomplishments; going by
technical achievement alone, "Akira" still outshines any animation done since.
"Mononoke Hime," and to a lesser extent "Akira" and "Nausicaa" do have some
new ideas. Please note, however, that two of them are by the same guy. And I
didn't mean that all anime films are worthless. Quite the contrary--some anime
films are fabulous. I meant that the genre itself was not inherently so. That
is, just because it's anime doesn't mean it's any good. And in fact, just
because it's anime doesn't mean that a higher percentage of it is good than,
say, the percentage of good Hollywood movies.
Well, do you know any Japanese?
Yes.
Oh, I quite disagree. The tentacle rape shows are certainly aimed at
overworked businessmen. _Porco Ross_ was also intended to be aimed
at businessmen.
What the heck are you talking about? Maybe the subject of tentacle rape
appeals to salarymen; I don't know of any demographic studies, so I can't say
for sure. But if anything, I'm sure they watch live action versions of same.
That was my point: that it is the medium of animation that makes anime for
young adults. The subject matter therefore usually is geared for this age group
too, but isn't necessarily so.
Agreed, Miyazaki films do have a wider audience than most. But again, he is an
exception, and indeed a very singular one, in the field. The vast majority of
anime has no foothold among the average viewer. That's why the Yomiuri Shimbun
has to explain in its articles what Evangelion is. Because even the most
popular anime show of the last five years still doesn't penetrate far into the
Japanese mainstream.
LyabiBrave
"Animation"."
In Japan, yes. In America, "anime" means "Japanese animation," which is not
exactly a genre, but certainly isn't a medium either.
"Anime is from Japan. Why should it copy a dead European genre?"
Romanticism as a genre isn't dead (though the *movement* is). And why
shouldn't anime be open to all forms of expression? I'm talking about writing
here mainly, not the visual style, which has long since been codified.
I said: "the general market trend and the forces of mainstream success which
control anime conspire to reduce it all to middle-of-the-road
pablum. With great, though not quite total, success."
Dugan Chen responded: "This is true for _every_ artistic medium."
Yes. I merely wished to make this obvious, in order to indicate that a
reversal of this trend was in order. Such a thing is possible, though not easy;
and it happens (in a capitalist milieu) through market forces. That means what
we settle for and buy.
andrew osmond
> going by
>technical achievement alone, "Akira" still outshines any animation done since.
We had a thread on Akira in the last few days. As usual, such statements
are subjective. Yes, Akira had great backgrounds, lots of good
incidental details (dust-clouds etc) and splendid music, but many people
feel character animation and 'acting' were crude. And I'm not sure, even
excluding 'acting', that there haven't been technically better films.
Memories, for example, or Kenji's Spring, or Mononoke.
Also, do you mean *animes* done since? Or animation as a whole? On a
'technical' level, I would point to Disneys like Lion King or Hunchback,
despite the flak they've taken on other fronts. And that's ignoring
animation done previously. An argument that Akira is technically
superior to, say, Pinnochio or Fantasia would *really* need filling out.
> "Mononoke Hime," and to a lesser extent "Akira" and "Nausicaa" do have
>some
>new ideas.
Hmmm. Ideawise, I think Akira was a mess, and there'd been previous
animes in similar milieus. I find Nausicaa, despite its naivete and cop-
outs, to be more interesting. Not least because of the way it *reworks*,
rather than simply steals from, Western SF classics like Dune and
Hothouse which Miyazaki had read.
Mononoke I'm not sure about. The *execution* is wonderful, but many of
the ideas had turned up in previous Ghiblis, especially Takahata's
neglected Pom Poko (War of the Racoons).
> Maybe the subject of tentacle rape
>appeals to salarymen; I don't know of any demographic studies, so I can't say
>for sure. But if anything, I'm sure they watch live action versions of same.
There's a live-action Overfiend (!). However, my impression is anime and
manga are easier for circumventing Japan's unique censorship laws,
although that point may be eroded. Still can't check The Erotic Anime
Movie Guide. Erotic manga *is* often aimed at salarymen.
>That was my point: that it is the medium of animation that makes anime for
>young adults.
Just to note: *commercial* animation may be geared to yungsters, but
there's a vast global industry of experimental animation where this
isn't the case. See Ginnalberto Bendazzi (hate the guy myself, but he's
done his research).
> Agreed, Miyazaki films do have a wider audience than most. But again, he
>is an
>exception, and indeed a very singular one, in the field.
Not totally unique, though. There's Takahata, of course, and I imagine
Gisaburo Sugii (Galactic Railroad, Tale of Gen) as well. Probably
others.
> Because even the most
>popular anime show of the last five years still doesn't penetrate far into the
>Japanese mainstream.
As far as 'mainstream' goes, isn't Doraemon still running? And how about
Detective Boy Conan? Okay, they're children's series, but Doraemon at
least has a level of national affection comparable to Bugs Bunny or
Mickey Mouse.
Can someone add details about the most popular animes *in Japan*? I
believe they're often soap-operas, often aimed at housewives, that are
little-known in the West.
--
andrew osmond
LyabiBrave
Primarily, the point that saying "I'm an anime fan" doesn't mean you like porno
because saying "I'm a movie fan" doesn't either. Mind you, I don't say "I like
movies!" either, because so many of them are crap. But it is true that this
connection is a leap I should not have made.
In addition, I understand that "otaku" now means "dangerous lunatic" in Japan,
and that obviously *is* due to recent events. But it si hardly used that way
here in America. Here, it is frequently a source of pride, and that's what I
find fault with. However, I'll allow that I am totally wrong here if only to
get off the topic. I'd rather discuss the actual art and the way viewers relate
to it rather than the names they call themselves.
I understand I'm the one who started it, and believe me, I'm sorry.
Now here's a comment I'd like to respond to:
"SOME of the art is designed for adolescents. In fact, the BEST works are
designed for adolescents (such as Miyazaki's films). This (again) tells
me that you are not seeing things clearly...it's like the teenager who
thinks that a film automatically isn't going to be any good because it
is rated "PG" instead of "R". Just because "adult" aspects like heads
being lopped off or tons of sex don't occur doesn't make THE CONTENT
automatically childish or immature in any way. You were be hard pressed
to find any film (American or foreign) that can match the complexity of
Patlabor 2, Wings of Honneamise, or Mononoke Hime...if you still contend
that these films are "dumbed down" to reach a 7 year old audience then
what you are esentially saying is that 7 year old japanese kids are the
most sophisticated film watchers on the planet."
Almost all of the art is designed for adolescents. While I agree that
Miyazaki's best work ranks among the very best films ever out of Japan, his
stuff is not for adolescents ONLY; like Disney claims (but is wrong), his films
are "for the entire family!". On the other hand, most of the field, including
things like Ghost in the Shell, are geared solely and specifically for a
young-adult audience, just like I Know What You Did Last Summer, etc.
Why do people keep insisting I said things I never did? Not only did I not
claim that the absence of sex and violence makes something childish, but I
strongly insist that if anything, the opposite is more true. Those works which
contain only, or primarily, sex and violence tend not to have anything else
going for them. "All ages" is not an evil term. Taking the most extreme
example, Citizen Kane doesn't have any objectionable material in it. That
doesn't dim its achievement one whit.
However, note that Citizen Kane *does* have a very, very "adult" sense of art
and human behavior. This thoughtfulness is sorely lacking in very nearly all
anime. And I don't JUST mean "Does it address what it means to be human?" I
mean also the way the work is presented, through direction, sound design, and
so forth.
I would not IN THE LEAST be hardpressed to come up with ANY other films as
complex as Patlabor 2, Wings of Honneamise, or Mononoke Hime. Miller's
Crossing. La Dolce Vita. The Big Sleep. Apocalypse Now. La Regle d'Jeu. North
By Northwest. Peking Opera Blues. Quiz Show. Rashomon. This list goes on for
days....
That doesn't mean those films aren't worthy of distinction. In fact, they're
some of my favorites. Again, though, we see a very small number of people at
work. Mamoru Oshii and Miyazaki are rogue talents in the anime arena. They are
accompanied not only by a startling number of lesser creators, but a general
attitude that even attempting the things they do is too risky. Look at the
fearful, confused reception even something as tame as Evangelion got.
Yes, there is good anime. There's even great anime. It is produced by real
artists, just like the small proportion of good American films. I just want
this all-too-obvious fact to actually *be* all-too-obvious. Anime is no better,
by its nature, than any other field of artistic endeavor. Right now, it is not
even better by content.
But that can change, if people demand higher quality. And refuse to settle for
the minor, adolescent fantasies it is now producing in great quantity.
James King
andrew osmond wrote in message ...
<Snip>
>> Maybe the subject of tentacle rape
>>appeals to salarymen; I don't know of any demographic studies, so I can't
say
>>for sure. But if anything, I'm sure they watch live action versions of
same.
>
>There's a live-action Overfiend (!). However, my impression is anime and
>manga are easier for circumventing Japan's unique censorship laws,
>although that point may be eroded. Still can't check The Erotic Anime
>Movie Guide. Erotic manga *is* often aimed at salarymen.
Well, most of it probably isn't aimed at housewives (there are exceptions),
they definitely aren't aimed at school kids, and Executives probably don't
account for much of the manga market, so Salarymen are all that are _left_
to market it to, really.
LyabiBrave
directors number very, very few. Takahata would certainly count, and I'm sure
there are others. But as I said, the number is distressingly low; lower, even,
than the American Hollywood director count.
But I do think that an honest analysis of how
>Americans use the term "anime" will show that it is NOT synonymous with
"medium."
Can you expand? I'm having trouble seeing this 'analysis.'
Okay, I wish I hadn't brought this up but here goes: "anime" asused in Japan
is a mediumistic word for all animated works. "anime" as used in America means
"all animation from Japan." This is obviously NOT a medium, since a) a medium
is a particular fashion of creation (i.e. frame-by-frame drawing) and b)
Americans don't use the word the same as the Japanese, and the Japanese term
*is* mediumistic.
Given, "genre" isn't exactly correct either. It feels closer, to me, than
"medium" but the same may not hold for others. I've gone to using "field" since
that term's connotation of "particular sort of ventures" most nearly
approximates the American use of "anime."
I said: "I like some anime. Most of it is not any good. The things that are not
any good nevertheless continue to hold fan interest. This results in a feedback
loop to the producers, encouraging them to continue making this lesser
material. The percentage of good anime goes down, and my enjoyment with it. I
wish to change this by altering the output of the feedback loop."
Andrew Osmond replied: "See my past note on selfish subtexts, and the begged
question of how a bunch of foreign fans can do *anything* to change this."
It is not a selfish subtext. It is a selfish text. I want to see uniformly
better material. Don't you? I know our tastes might differ...see some later
comments below.
As for how foreign fans can affect it: for one thing, the *certainly* have a
measure of command over what gets brought over by the dubbing and subbing
companies. Yes, affordability determines some of it. Yes, popularity in Japan
affords more. But somewhere, the actual purchases of American fans set the
overall tone of what sorts of things are purchased for stateside consumption.
Yes, tastes differ. But quality of art, defined as a combination of individual
vision, technical skill, and creative innovation, is an objective thing.
Whether you like Touch of Evil is up to your tastes; but I can logically
*prove* that it is a better movie than Stargate. Anime is susceptible to the
same analysis.
andrew osmond
> Almost all of the art is designed for adolescents. While I agree that
>Miyazaki's best work ranks among the very best films ever out of Japan, his
>stuff is not for adolescents ONLY; like Disney claims (but is wrong), his films
>are "for the entire family!". On the other hand, most of the field, including
>things like Ghost in the Shell, are geared solely and specifically for a
>young-adult audience, just like I Know What You Did Last Summer, etc.
At the risk of being off-topic, I don't consider a work 'designed for
adolescents' to be inherently bad. I'm disconcerted by the pathological
hatred of teenagers espoused by endless commentators, especially in my
home Britain. There are adolescents and adolescents, and the work
produced for them reflects that. Children's media doesn't have the same
stigma, although when a kid's book is lionised, you get the
'definitional stop' rationalisation; 'Oh, it wasn't really for children
anyway.'
(Incidentally, I'd argue North by Northwest, which I've seen several
times, treats the human condition less realistically than the average
Robert Cormier, an 'adolescent' writer for a degenerate audience.)
--
andrew osmond
LyabiBrave
personal opinion."
First, let me state one premise which lies behind my arguments:
"Good" as I use it means the art in question possesses unique or unusual
properties, is skillfully made, and expresses personal vision. If you
understand that as my use of the term, then:
"Good and bad are a matter of personal opinion" is not true. "Like and not
like" are a matter of personal opinion. Any piece of art is a physical object
whose properties can be assessed. "Goodness" therefore, keeping in mind the
definition above, is an objective thing whosem presence or absence can be
determined. And no amount of liking or not liking will change its inherence in
the work.
For example, the messages expressed by the movie Olympia that Hitler's regime
is an altogether good thing, and that athletic prowess is one of the highest
goals of humanity, I do not personally agree with. That does not reduce in any
way my appreciation of the good art that Olympia is. This dichotomy can produce
awkwardness: many intelligent people can watch Birth of a Nation and marvel at
the accomplished technique, but they'll all cringe at the positive portrayal of
the Ku Klux Klan.
My point is that my tastes do not influence these works' goodness or badness.
Some people like Picasso. Some don't. But their reactions don't affect the
content, which is what quality assessments are based on. Same deal with anime.
I can like Riding Bean all I want, but that doesn't change its inherent
qualities, or lack thereof.
Obviously I don't really believe any of this, but if it'll make you happy:
I'm arrogant. I think I'm better than you. I don't mean anything I say. You
are a much better human being than I am.
Now that's out of the way, why don't we discuss whether things are good?
Or discuss whether my definition of "good" is useful.
This is the sort of thing I'm actually driving for, whether or not you believe
that. I don't want your accolades; they mean as little to me as my denigrations
mean to you. But our ideas, if they impel thought in others, are valuable to us
both.
andrew osmond
> First, let me state one premise which lies behind my arguments:
> "Good" as I use it means the art in question possesses unique or unusual
>properties, is skillfully made, and expresses personal vision. If you
>understand that as my use of the term, then:
> "Good and bad are a matter of personal opinion" is not true.
You'll have to fill that out more. 'Unique', 'skillful', 'personal' -
these are all loaded words, fairly empty as descriptions, with strong
normative elements. It still comes down to matters of opinion.
> "Goodness" therefore, keeping in mind the
>definition above, is an objective thing whosem presence or absence can be
>determined. And no amount of liking or not liking will change its inherence in
>the work.
I can see problems here too. You cut 'goodness' away from likes and
dislikes, but that begs the question: why, on your definition, should
(normative again) we have any interest in 'good' anime, films etc? Or in
what you 'objectively' percieve to be good?
--
andrew osmond
Greene
>
> On the other hand, most of the field, including
> >things like Ghost in the Shell, are geared solely and specifically for a
> >young-adult audience, just like I Know What You Did Last Summer, etc.
>
> At the risk of being off-topic, I don't consider a work 'designed for
> adolescents' to be inherently bad. I'm disconcerted by the pathological
> hatred of teenagers espoused by endless commentators, especially in my
> home Britain. There are adolescents and adolescents, and the work
> produced for them reflects that. Children's media doesn't have the same
> stigma, although when a kid's book is lionised, you get the
> 'definitional stop' rationalisation; 'Oh, it wasn't really for children
> anyway.'
>
> (Incidentally, I'd argue North by Northwest, which I've seen several
> times, treats the human condition less realistically than the average
> Robert Cormier, an 'adolescent' writer for a degenerate audience.)
> --
> andrew osmond
Bingo! And I'd also like to add that grouping Ghost in the Shell with a
thriller like I Know What You Did Last Summer isn't fair. Completely
different films...and I guess I am just a little confused by comments
like this because when I bring up Patlabor 2 a couple of paragraphs
later he goes on about how people like Oshii are an "exception" to his
"rule"? This completely contradicts his own example. Oh well...it's not
like I am getting anything out of this thread anyways...
- D'Ary
Paul Lampshire
<Snip>
>I said: "I like some anime. Most of it is not any good. The things that are
not
>any good nevertheless continue to hold fan interest. This results in a
feedback
>loop to the producers, encouraging them to continue making this lesser
>material. The percentage of good anime goes down, and my enjoyment with it.
I
>wish to change this by altering the output of the feedback loop."
>
<Snip>
> It is not a selfish subtext. It is a selfish text. I want to see uniformly
>better material. Don't you? I know our tastes might differ...see some later
>comments below.
Oh very witty. So that makes it acceptable does it?
> Yes, tastes differ. But quality of art, defined as a combination of
individual
>vision, technical skill, and creative innovation, is an objective thing.
>Whether you like Touch of Evil is up to your tastes; but I can logically
>*prove* that it is a better movie than Stargate. Anime is susceptible to
the
>same analysis.
No, you can't. You can prove it has better direction, or acting, or
lighting. You can argue the merits of the storyline. You can, [possibly]
prove that one is more 'original' than the other. But you can't prove it's
a better film.
In fact, I'm not even sure you can prove the first three either...
>My name is Christian Smith. I welcome your comments.
>lyabi...@aol.com
>"I just want people to see my action heart."
--
God's in His heaven, all's right with the world.
Paul Lampshire
>Just one comment:
>At the risk of being off-topic, I don't consider a work 'designed for
>adolescents' to be inherently bad. I'm disconcerted by the pathological
>hatred of teenagers espoused by endless commentators, especially in my
>home Britain. There are adolescents and adolescents, and the work
>produced for them reflects that. Children's media doesn't have the same
>stigma, although when a kid's book is lionised, you get the
>'definitional stop' rationalisation; 'Oh, it wasn't really for children
>anyway.'
The same thing is true of most 'genre' TV,/films/books.
To wheel out an old quote
"'SF's no good,' they shout until we're deaf.'
"'But this is good...' 'Well, it's not SF.'"
Witness the debate as to whether 1984 is SF or not.
What makes a good film?
What makes good music?
Should we, for example, accept Basara's definition [or apparant definition]
in that it should be able to 'move' you?
[By which definition, American Fire is really bad - it moved me alright - it
moved me to eject the CD from the player and [in the words of Bob Mortimer
'Let's hear that sung *properly*' put 'Let's Fire' on instead...
If I can refer also to the episode of Red Dwarf ' Legion.' Kryten comments
of a painting 'It fulfills all seven criteria to be considered a
masterpiece.'
Sound silly? But isn't that what the idea of 'objectively' grading art is
about - fundamentally?
>andrew osmond
Paul Lampshire
James King wrote in message <7322tr$hk7$1...@news2.tor.accglobal.net>...
>Same reaction I had. When the boy was born, I spent several minutes trying
>to figure out how the Solonoids reproduced before this, since I doubt it
was
>parthenogenisis
It's funny, because that's the answer that makes most sense to me. It's the
simplest answer with the fewest assumptions...
Arnold Kim
>
> As for how foreign fans can affect it: for one thing, the *certainly* have a
> measure of command over what gets brought over by the dubbing and subbing
> companies. Yes, affordability determines some of it. Yes, popularity in Japan
> affords more. But somewhere, the actual purchases of American fans set the
> overall tone of what sorts of things are purchased for stateside consumption.
But you're also assuming that the good stuff _doesn't_ come here, which
usually isn't the case. We are already getting the best anime Japan has to
offer at this point.
> Yes, tastes differ. But quality of art, defined as a combination of individual
> vision, technical skill, and creative innovation, is an objective thing.
> Whether you like Touch of Evil is up to your tastes; but I can logically
> *prove* that it is a better movie than Stargate. Anime is susceptible to the
> same analysis.
Better and more innovative aren't necessarily the same thing.
Even here, you still cannot, save for perhaps technical skill. How good all
these elements are are determined by how it affects the viewers. I've taken
a film class last semester myself, and the most successful technical elements
are suggestive of something to the audeince, whether they conciously
realize it or not. Films are meant to engage the audience in a certain way-
either suggesting something to them or involving them emotionally. And
that all depends on the audience and how they receive the film.
Case in point- Titanic. Some critics said it was amazing, some panned it.
Who's right and who's wrong? Objectively, no one.
Arnold Kim
prospective film student
Joe Monson
enlightened the masses by posting:
>
> LyabiBrave <lyabi...@aol.com> writes
-----<snip-a-roo>-----
>
>> Because even the most
>>popular anime show of the last five years still doesn't penetrate far into the
>>Japanese mainstream.
>
>As far as 'mainstream' goes, isn't Doraemon still running? And how about
>Detective Boy Conan? Okay, they're children's series, but Doraemon at
>least has a level of national affection comparable to Bugs Bunny or
>Mickey Mouse.
>
>Can someone add details about the most popular animes *in Japan*? I
>believe they're often soap-operas, often aimed at housewives, that are
>little-known in the West.
"Famous Detective Conan" is still running - I watch it every Monday night.
Another really popular series that has no fantastical elements to it is
"Tsuyoshi Shikkari Shinasai", also on Mondays. It's basically an "everyday
life" show. I like both shows, myself.
If you want to get into the manga aspect, two of the longest-running series
I can think of off the top o' my head: "Garasu no Kamen", about some
actresses (I have one volume of the manga and it's packed up in a box in
the USA) is at 40+ volumes; and "Kochira Kasshika-ku Kameori Kouen-mae
Hashutsujo", a police comedy/drama that's on it's 110th volume of manga and
also has an anime TV series based on it.
"Doraemon" is still running. I occasionally will watch it. It's still
really popular, too.
Joe
David Crowe
: James King wrote in message <7322tr$hk7$1...@news2.tor.accglobal.net>...
: >Same reaction I had. When the boy was born, I spent several minutes trying
: >to figure out how the Solonoids reproduced before this, since I doubt it
: was
: >parthenogenisis
: It's funny, because that's the answer that makes most sense to me. It's the
: simplest answer with the fewest assumptions...
One known fact is that all the Solinoid men were killed off in the war a
long time ago (By a targeted bio-weapon, I guess). Since then, the
women've used cloning and so forth to keep the race alive.
--
David "No Nickname" Crowe http://www.primenet.com/~jetman
People who post troll messages are like wads of gum on the sidewalk:
Thoughtless, immediately annoying and sometimes hard to get rid of,
but quickly forgotten when gone and ultimately unimportant.
Kerisu Purity Control
> Yes, there is good anime. There's even great anime. It is produced by real
> artists, just like the small proportion of good American films. I just want
> this all-too-obvious fact to actually *be* all-too-obvious. Anime is no better,
> by its nature, than any other field of artistic endeavor. Right now, it is not
> even better by content.
> But that can change, if people demand higher quality. And refuse to settle for
> the minor, adolescent fantasies it is now producing in great quantity.
So effectively, you wish to deny people the choice to engage in what you call the
"minor, adolescent fantasies" and have all anime produced be the equivalent of
independent movies. Nice idea. I suppose that means no more Gundams for us,
no more Kodomo No Omochas, no more Detective Conans, nothing if it isn't up to
your intellectually stimulating standards.
I seem to remember another gentleman who wished to take away freedom of choice.
His name was Hitler. Congratulations.
Ja mata,
--
______________________________________________________________
.| Kerisu Jurio - kerisu....@usa.net - DJ Purity Control |.
.oO| MDC Industries: http://homepages.infoseek.com/~mindcorp |Oo.
.oOOO| On sale from CPM: Revolutionary Valley-Girl Utena. Shudder. |OOOo.
~~~~`--------------------------------------------------------------'~~~~
Preciosa May Capino
> But you're also assuming that the good stuff _doesn't_ come here, which
> usually isn't the case. We are already getting the best anime Japan has to
> offer at this point.
You actually believe that stuff that Viz/Animerica says about anime in
the US?? :)
Gomenasai. It's just that what you said sounded word-for-word something
like what I've read in an issue somewhere.
-Nangke
Preciosa May Capino
> Dugan Chen <chen...@direct.ca> wrote:
> Oh, I quite disagree. The tentacle rape shows are certainly aimed at
> overworked businessmen. _Porco Ross_ was also intended to be aimed
> at businessmen.
>
> appeals to salarymen; I don't know of any demographic studies, so I can't say
> for sure. But if anything, I'm sure they watch live action versions of same.
I think it's more likely that tentacle rape is made into live-action
because the success of such an anime has created an interest in the
series that attracts salarymen who have a bias *against* anime.
> That was my point: that it is the medium of animation that makes anime for
> young adults. The subject matter therefore usually is geared for this age group
> too, but isn't necessarily so.
Could you remind me where you were going with this point?
-Nangke
Paul Lampshire
>One known fact is that all the Solinoid men were killed off in the war a
>long time ago (By a targeted bio-weapon, I guess). Since then, the
>women've used cloning and so forth to keep the race alive.
Where is this stated, BTW? I would guess GallForce 3, but it's been a while
since I've seen it...
Arnold Kim
>
> The main thread I keep hearing here is "good and bad are only a matter of
> personal opinion."
> "Good" as I use it means the art in question possesses unique or unusual
> properties, is skillfully made, and expresses personal vision. If you
> understand that as my use of the term, then:
But skill in filmmaking entails essentially the way it affects the viewers.
That's the whole point of skillful filmmaking- to get your story across in
the way that the audience will most listen to. It's still up to the audience to
determine whether or not something works in a film.
> For example, the messages expressed by the movie Olympia that Hitler's regime
> is an altogether good thing, and that athletic prowess is one of the highest
> goals of humanity, I do not personally agree with. That does not reduce in any
> way my appreciation of the good art that Olympia is. This dichotomy can produce
> awkwardness: many intelligent people can watch Birth of a Nation and marvel at
> the accomplished technique, but they'll all cringe at the positive portrayal of
> the Ku Klux Klan.
But the thing is, content isn't necessarily what's being argued here. Even
your definition of goodness you put up there is still subjective.
My question to you is, do you like Birth of a Nation? Why do or don't you
like it?
I myself don't like drugs or violence put into a positive light, but that
doesn't keep me from enjoying Pulp FIction or Trainspotting.
> My point is that my tastes do not influence these works' goodness or badness.
Again, that's not what I'm tring to say- It's that these techniques of skillare
used to affect the viewer in a cetain way. The way it affects the viewer
depends on the individual.
Case in point: Titanic. Is that a "good" movie or a "bad" movie?
Arnold Kim
film buff
Dugan Chen
> I apologize for not being clear enough. All the shows you mention here
are
> technically groudbreaking, some more than others. What I was referring to
were
> the writing and direction, not the technical accomplishments;
Direction? Robot Carnival: 9 shorts by 9 different directors sounds
ground-breaking
enough for me.
Writing? Well, even in other media you don't get too much that's
ground-breaking
in this category
either.
> "Mononoke Hime," and to a lesser extent "Akira" and "Nausicaa" do have
some
> new ideas. Please note, however, that two of them are by the same guy.
So?
> And I
> didn't mean that all anime films are worthless. Quite the contrary--some
anime
> films are fabulous. I meant that the genre itself was not inherently so.
That
> is, just because it's anime doesn't mean it's any good. And in fact, just
> because it's anime doesn't mean that a higher percentage of it is good
than,
> say, the percentage of good Hollywood movies.
Look, moron, we already knew that.
> What the heck are you talking about?
The fact that Porco Rosso (which is not a tentacle rape anime) was
originally
intended by its director to be aimed at businessmen.
> Maybe the subject of tentacle rape
> appeals to salarymen; I don't know of any demographic studies, so I can't
say
> for sure. But if anything, I'm sure they watch live action versions of
same.
Then you know absolutely nothing.
> That was my point: that it is the medium of animation that makes anime
for
> young adults.
Pocket Monsters, Doraemon, Sailor Moon and Hello Kitty -- four of the most
popular series -- are _not_ aimed at young adults.
> The subject matter therefore usually is geared for this age group
> too, but isn't necessarily so.
Then you know absolutely nothing.
> Agreed, Miyazaki films do have a wider audience than most. But again, he
is an
> exception, and indeed a very singular one, in the field. The vast
majority of
> anime has no foothold among the average viewer. That's why the Yomiuri
Shimbun
> has to explain in its articles what Evangelion is.
Evangelion? The show that was studied over there as a pop culture
phenomenen?
> Because even the most
> popular anime show of the last five years still doesn't penetrate far
into the
> Japanese mainstream.
Untrue.
Dugan Chen
> Yes, there are a bunch more manga authors than anime directors. But the
anime
> directors number very, very few. Takahata would certainly count, and I'm
sure
> there are others. But as I said, the number is distressingly low; lower,
even,
> than the American Hollywood director count.
Define "distressingly low".
> But I do think that an honest analysis of how
> >Americans use the term "anime" will show that it is NOT synonymous with
> "medium."
>
> Can you expand? I'm having trouble seeing this 'analysis.'
Then maybe you're not as smart as you think you are.
> Given, "genre" isn't exactly correct either. It feels closer, to me,
than
> "medium" but the same may not hold for others. I've gone to using "field"
since
> that term's connotation of "particular sort of ventures" most nearly
> approximates the American use of "anime."
I see. When you've got no other method of making an ass of yourself,
you argue semantics.
> I said: "I like some anime. Most of it is not any good. The things that
are not
> any good nevertheless continue to hold fan interest.
If they're so well-loved then they can't be that bad, right?
> This results in a feedback
> loop to the producers, encouraging them to continue making this lesser
> material. The percentage of good anime goes down, and my enjoyment with
it. I
> wish to change this by altering the output of the feedback loop."
Then make some anime yourself.
> It is not a selfish subtext. It is a selfish text. I want to see
uniformly
> better material. Don't you? I know our tastes might differ...see some
later
> comments below.
Then make some.
> Yes, tastes differ. But quality of art, defined as a combination of
individual
> vision, technical skill, and creative innovation, is an objective thing.
> Whether you like Touch of Evil is up to your tastes; but I can logically
> *prove* that it is a better movie than Stargate. Anime is susceptible to
the
> same analysis.
And your logic would be flawed as it always is.
Dugan Chen
<36564295...@ptd.net>...
> I seem to remember another gentleman who wished to take away freedom of
choice.
> His name was Hitler. Congratulations.
Godwin be praised.
Dugan Chen
> "Dugan Chen" <chen...@direct.ca> wrote:
>
> Well since you claim to be _much_ more intelligent then anyone else on
this
> newsgroup, and _much_ more knowledgeable about art than any anime artist,
then
> well, WHY DON'T YOU MAKE YOUR OWN ANIME FILM AND PROVE YOUR SUPERIORITY
THAT
> WAY?
>
> Hey, doofus...look back at what I wrote. Did I EVER claim that I am
"much more
> knowledgable about art than any anime artist"? No, I did not. I don't
mind at
> all if you vehemently disagree with my points, but please don't MAKE UP
> arguments and then bash them. (I also never claimed to be more
intelligent than
> anyone else in the newsgroup. I honestly don't even think I am.)
Yes you did. You claimed repeatedly that anime films were too stupid
for you, and that the directors were stuck in their own worlds listening
to bootlicking fan feedback. You also made the claim that this
newsgroup was devoid of intellectual discussion before you showed
up. You claimed you were here to save us from our own stupidity.
Looking at what you wrote, I am amazed that you could lie like this.
Dugan Chen
> "Good" as I use it means the art in question possesses unique or unusual
> properties, is skillfully made, and expresses personal vision. If you
> understand that as my use of the term, then:
You claim repeatedly that _Evangelion_ is not "good", even though it
has all of the above qualities. Therefore, you were clearly _not_
using the word "good" in this way.
Dugan Chen
> Romanticism as a genre isn't dead (though the *movement* is). And why
> shouldn't anime be open to all forms of expression?
That isn't the point. You claimed that anime has less merit just because
it isn't influenced by Romanticism. This is as absurd as saying that
American animation sucks because it isn't influenced by Kabuki.
> I'm talking about writing here mainly, not the visual style,
> which has long since
> been codified.
Explain how visual style has been codified. _Night On The Galactic
Railroad_, _Galaxy Express 999_ and _Tenchi_ are
stylistically more different than Bugs Bunny and South Park.
David Johnston
>
> LyabiBrave wrote:
> > Yes, there is good anime. There's even great anime. It is produced by real
> > artists, just like the small proportion of good American films. I just want
> > this all-too-obvious fact to actually *be* all-too-obvious. Anime is no better,
> > by its nature, than any other field of artistic endeavor. Right now, it is not
> > even better by content.
> > But that can change, if people demand higher quality. And refuse to settle for
> > the minor, adolescent fantasies it is now producing in great quantity.
>
> So effectively, you wish to deny people the choice to engage in what you call the
> "minor, adolescent fantasies" and have all anime produced be the equivalent of
> independent movies. Nice idea. I suppose that means no more Gundams for us,
> no more Kodomo No Omochas, no more Detective Conans, nothing if it isn't up to
> your intellectually stimulating standards.
>
> His name was Hitler. Congratulations.
Who?
You were doing so well until you had to bring what-sis-name into it.
Dugan Chen
> If I don't make Hollywood movies, does that mean
> I'm not allowed to call "It's Pat!" a worthless waste of
> celluloid? Of course not. I'm a consumer, and in a
> market-driven economy my opinions are what count
> most. Just like yours.
You told people to pirate anime because it's
"too expensive" and never recanted. You are
a thief, NOT a consumer. So don't pull
that "I'm a consumer" thing on us.
David Johnston
>
> > "Good" as I use it means the art in question possesses unique or unusual
> > properties, is skillfully made, and expresses personal vision. If you
> > understand that as my use of the term, then:
>
> You claim repeatedly that _Evangelion_ is not "good", even though it
> has all of the above qualities. Therefore, you were clearly _not_
> using the word "good" in this way.
Oh, by the way. I just watched the first couple of episodes
of Evangelion. You know, I don't like it. Maybe the subbed version
was better.
andrew osmond
>> But I do think that an honest analysis of how
>> >Americans use the term "anime" will show that it is NOT synonymous with
>> "medium."
>>
>> Can you expand? I'm having trouble seeing this 'analysis.'
>
>Then maybe you're not as smart as you think you are.
>
Er, Lyabibrave wrote the assertion and I asked the question. Try to keep
track.
--
andrew osmond
stanlee
I think what he meant was that,
in Japan, 90% of anime that's made is crap.
But here in America, anime importers and companies
tend to bring over the better types.
Mainly because the better types would sell well,
especially among the NA anime community.
After all, why spend money bringing over a show that is crap?
This system works like a filter, taking out the bad stuff.
(Of course, no filter is perfect. ^_^;; )
Laters. =)
Stan
----------
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \____|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ Stanlee Dometita sd0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
| ( _| | U of Rochester sta...@www.cif.rochester.edu
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | | www.cif.rochester.edu/~stanlee
/ \/ \| _ | |\ | uhura.cc.rochester.edu/~sd005e
/___/\/\___\__| |__|___| \____|
Damien Roc
Paul Lampshire wrote:
> David Crowe wrote in message <735e57$m7f$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>...
> >One known fact is that all the Solinoid men were killed off in the war a
> >long time ago (By a targeted bio-weapon, I guess). Since then, the
> >women've used cloning and so forth to keep the race alive.
>
> Where is this stated, BTW? I would guess GallForce 3, but it's been a while
> since I've seen it...
Might be in Rhea/Earth Chapter. Can't remember.
Damien Roc
Damien Roc
Epsilon wrote:
> In article <19981120071759...@ng133.aol.com>, lyabi...@aol.com
> says...
> >
> > The main thread I keep hearing here is "good and bad are only a matter of
> >personal opinion."
> > First, let me state one premise which lies behind my arguments:
> > "Good" as I use it means the art in question possesses unique or unusual
> >properties, is skillfully made, and expresses personal vision.
>
> Define the following terms, using 100% pure objective statements and no
> comparisons.
>
> "Unique", "Unusual" "Skillful" "Personal Vision"
>
> >If you understand that as my use of the term, then:
> >"Good and bad are a matter of personal opinion" is not true. "Like and >not
> >like" are a matter of personal opinion. Any piece of art is a physical >object
> >whose properties can be assessed. "Goodness" therefore, keeping in mind >the
> >definition above, is an objective thing whosem presence or absence can be
> >determined. And no amount of liking or not liking will change its inherence in
> >the work.
>
> Untrue on both counts. For instance, let us take a poem, which I have recited to
> my friend but has never been written down and/or recorded by audio-visual media.
> Does this make it less artr, because it does not have a physical representation
> as we define the term.
>
> Also, art is very much a subjective thing. In it's very NATURE art is uspposed
> to be subjective. The value we place on art, or anything else for that matter,
> is entirely personal.
True. The only time I've ever seen a feasable attempt at a rather firm evaluation of
art was in my Film and Video class on what it took to be a great film... The
categories were rather loose and easy to pin down, yet all together the criterion
made the things that could fit into it a rather exclusive group.
It wasn't 100% accurate, but it did give a good way to rougly judge the greatness (or
goodness) of films. (If I can find my notes, I'll put 'em up here. They should apply,
vaguely, to anime.)
> >My point is that my tastes do not influence these works' goodness or >badness.
> >Some people like Picasso. Some don't. But their reactions don't affect >the
> >content, which is what quality assessments are based on. Same deal with >anime.
>
> But HOW is it's quality judged? What inherent factors make something "better"
> than something else? And a better question yet, who DEFINES what factors a work
> of art is judged on? The majority of people? The "educated" elite? The person
> doing the viewing there and then? God? Bill Gates?
Experts generally... Whether we, as the public, are willing to believe those experts
is another matter entirely.
> > Or discuss whether my definition of "good" is useful.
>
> Wether or not it is a useful defintion is not a subject for this newsgroup. This
> newsgroup has had it's share of "what is art" debates in the past, and although
> they can be said to be on topic by the very THINEST of justifications there are
> other newsgroups far more useful for this kind of discusion and in fact desigend
> for this. Rec.art is but one of them.
Remembering "Merit in Anime" Epsilon?
> I will not reply to any further discussion from you on the newsgroup. if you
> wish to take this debate to private e-mail, another newsgroup or any other
> suitable forum aside from RAAM then I will galdly continue to converse with you,
> but not here.
>
> ---------
> Epsilon
Damien Roc