Welcome to Gaia! ::

aw, and here i thought it wasn't about taking things personally. at least you're right at not attacking my mom else i might have to make it personal.

you can take anything that you dislike about art and attach the word anime to it, but no one else is going to share your definition. which is what makes your anti-anime statement so confusing. the things that you describe as the things you don't like don't necessarily have anything to do with anime and have everything to do with a preference on what you find appealing. the things that you find unattractive are also some of the things that i generally don't like in any genre.

anime != your personal distastes in art in general.

-anime



i would say that princess mononoke fits into that definition. are you calling the writers and editors of merriam websters dictionary racists? the japanese are the ones who came up with the term and thus refer to it that way themselves.

anime



Style originating from Japan does not mean that all art originating from japan falls into this category. Karate originates in Japan. That neither stops non-japanese people from doing karate nor does it mean that all martial arts practiced in Japan are karate.

Watch this:
anime



That is the part of the definition that matters. Stark, colorful graphics. Vibrant characters. Characterized by. Not originating in, because the point of origin is irrelevant to the look. It's a piece of historical trivia that has nothing to do with how the stuff looks.

To my mind, determining the style of art based on geographical point of origin is wrong, stupid, and it belittles the very idea of style. Style has absolutely nothing to do with where in the world the animation house is located.

This is where we disagree it seems. When I talk anime I am talking about art that is characterized by stark colorful graphics depicting vibrant characters in action-filled plots often with fantastic or futuristic themes. Some of you seem to think I am talking about art originating in Japan.

I want to be clear now: I dislike art that is characterized by stark colorful graphics depicting vibrant characters in action-filled plots often with fantastic or futuristic themes. Let's call that "anime".

I do not dislike art originating in Japan. Let's call that "art originating in Japan".

More to the point, I do hate the OP image. I would be surprised if it originated in Japan, (which I contend is irrelevant anyhow), but it's certainly got problems that I personally attribute to anime influence.

Now, I'm done explaining my opinion. I'd appreciate in the future that if yu disagree with what I have to say or aren't quite clear on what I mean that we do this again. It's been real fun dealing with you all.


Tawney: Thank you, I agree. I'm just going to stop referring to genres entirely.

I'm changing the direction of what you think my argument is, by explaining that anime, to me, is not simply "all art from japan".

I have never said, nor would I ever say that all Japanese art is bad.

And I'm sorry if I overreacted to your extremely condecending tone ("how cute" indeed) - I suppose that is just how you address people whom you respect.

Actually. He said in the very beginning:



And:



But maybe this argument should really, really die because:

I agree with both that black was a bad idea. This was just a small experiment with some scrap board, after all. I think if i do decide to take a stab at painting on colored paper i'll use a more muted paper. Not too sure if i could get a brighter red than what i have at the moment. I don't actually have a red gouache yet so i had to use my cadmium red watercolor very thick. I'm actually not sure if i will be getting cadmium red in gouache considering most tubes i've found cost something to the tune of 18 dollars or more depending on the brand. Of course i'll have to decide when i do run out of the watercolor since i really love how bright it is.

Also, Dr. Valentine, i would like to know why, if you are so adamantly against such qualities in anime that you had listed previous, why are you on Gaia, which more or less embraces such qualities?

And to add my last two-cents to the anime in traditional media, I know of three Japanese artists who have been considered anime-style artists that are fairly good and use natural media: Yoshitaka Amano, Hiroaki Samura and Yukito Kishiro.
I'm sure most of you know who Yoshitaka Amano is, but in case you don't, he has done illustrations for all of the vampire hunter D books, concept art for all of the final fantasies, and is the only Japanese illustrator we covered in my history of illustration class.
Hiroaki Samura draws Blade of the Immortal and does most of the covers to the graphic novels in either oils or acrylics. He is also a rarity among manga artists in which he went to school for art.
The last one Yukito Kishiro draws Battle Angel Alita. A few years ago he switched from natural media to digital, but the covers for the original Battle Angel graphic novels were done in GOUACHE.

mmm, blade of the immortal is a guilty pleasure of mine. same with battle angel alita even though i'm not into that specific genre. i like the pacing of the stories, and with blade of the immortal how well the panels work to show action and plot. i've been veering away from manga from a while, since i've seen a lot of the same plots over and over again, but those two are probably one of the few that i'll go out and actively buy whenever the next issue comes out.

that's pretty cool that your illustration class went over amano's works. i know that usually anime isn't usually covered in classes. i'm probably not one of his biggest fans but i respect his works.

i think you're a little late since the party has pretty much blown over. but at least now you've actually decided on being a little specific with your point of view. mainstream anime will more often than not look cheap because of the time constraints and budgets. it's the same with any sort of animation especially made for tv shows. coming up with a 25-30 minute episode to show week after week is pretty taxing, and studios from different countries have different ways of cutting corners to make deadlines. and as with anything, there will be anime that will go beyond those expectations and limitations. miyazaki is lucky enough to have the talent and also the budget for his work to be good. satoshi kon's work is the same. studio 4c and production IG are also along those same lines. and more often than not, people are still going to call their work anime...which by definition doesn't have any connotation of it being called something awful or horrible or any of that sort of prejudice. that kind of blanket statement is similar to people who think that being an artist means having a poor and starving lifestyle. it's a romanticized view but it's misleading. and is that statement wrong? not necessarily, but it does create confusion because not every artist is like that.

same goes for this website. people who aren't familiar with gaia probably think that this place is just filled with a bunch of prepubescent horny kids with no rhyme or reason to their art and/or posts. evidently that's not the case and this guild is a good example of that. and while i can understand that notion, it's not exactly right.

and if 'we all' think that anime is from japan and the two of you are the only ones who have a different definition on it, it's going to create some confusion which doesn't really help your angle on it at all. which was why i was asking for clarification from you.

it's not misspelling, it's miscommunication yo.

i find it difficult to see the word anime as some status symbol, or some derrogatory word for 'poor artist.' my stuff has been called that more often than not and i don't really find offense in it. even though technically i don't do animations that would make my stuff more anime, but i admit that i do find influence in that particular genre/scene.

and again, there's nothing wrong in your opinion. but that also works the same way with everyone else. thanks for clarifying.

heart