It was actually some comments on my “Why We Watch Anime” post that got me thinking about this. Part of how some people perceive anime that separates them from the average anime viewer, I feel, is their perception that anime is an art form on the level of painting or literature or music. I don’t necessarily feel that this perception is wrong, but just as my post probably was only suited towards analyzing the behavior of the average anime watcher (opinions may vary on this), I feel that the perception of anime as an art form is also perhaps taking only a subsection of the masses of anime series out there and viewing them in that form.
I think it’s extremely difficult to find a proper definition of art in my view, as I think that everyone’s perception of what art is differs. I would say that art in its most general definition is just the creation of objects of aesthetic pleasure. In that regard, anime is, in its most general sense, art. Anime appeals to the aesthetic sense of its viewers. That, I would say, is a universally accepted fact.
Yes… Aesthetic…
But I feel that there are much more specific types of art that divides anime just as it divides art. In that regard, I’m talking about the difference between (these are self-made terms here) Avant-garde anime, creative anime, and commercial anime. I think that these names are rather self-explanatory, but just some quick definitions: Avant-garde anime is a series that is created with the idea of inquiry. It asks us to examine something within us, and examine our existing beliefs. Creative anime is created for the purpose of telling a story. It doesn’t necessarily challenge our fundamental assumptions. Commercial anime is created for, obviously, marketing. I feel that there are more animes that fall under the realm of commercial art as opposed to the other two categories.
In many regards, that is how I see the “moe boom” in recent history. Commercialized anime wasn’t really a reality until fairly recently. For the most part, anime was created as a means to weave an elaborate story, but as people realized the profit that could be made from the anime industry, more and more anime were created for the purposes of making money. I certainly don’t think that this era of commercialized anime is anywhere near over. Just looking at the sales of DVDs of Bakemonogatari and Evangelion 2.22, and the sales of Singles that were created for the purpose of anime (I’m looking at you My Song, My Beats! and Crow’s Song), I think that is a clear signal that demand is as high as ever for animated goods. Just look at AIC and the shows they’re producing for the Summer season. What’s that, like 6 shows or something? Ridiculous.
Dude are you kidding me? You produce enough bad shows already!
Anyway, I digressed a little bit. In the comments from my “Why We Watch Anime” post, there were people who posited three different views on why anime isn’t escapist. The first was that anime is pure entertainment, the second was that anime makes you think, and the third was that anime adds another bit of experience to your life. But the question that we have to ask is: What animes do you watch? What animes caused you to think that way? Are you a K-On! lover? Are you a Nodame Cantabile fan? Or do you exclusively watch shows like Ergo Proxy? Those three shows, I feel, are good representations of the three types of art that I stated in a previous paragraph. K-On! would be the commercial anime, Nodame the creative anime, and Ergo Proxy the Avant-garde anime.
While I think there might be some dispute over these categorizations, I feel that they’re appropriate. Most purely moe and harem shows are, I feel, a product of this commercialization of anime that has occurred in recent history. They don’t tell a tale at all, they’re just “feel good” types of animes. They’re akin to Kitsch – merely reproductions that lack any sort of self-expression from the director at all.
For God’s sake the song is terrible AND you reused the same animation 3 freaking times!
But I should probably move off the topic of commercialized anime as that is a topic that I rage about frequently (plus I’ve digressed twice into discussions about them!). Anime as an art form is a mix of painting, music, and film. It incorporates elements from each of those types of art into crafting its own identity. Going off of Chronolynx’s definition of originality, anime is indeed an original art form, one to be placed alongside other mediums of art.
Different types of art have different rationale behind their creation, and so does anime. We can trace a clear difference behind the works of Yuasa Masaaki versus Hiraike Yoshimasa (director of Fight Ippatsu! Juuden-Chan!! and Working!! if you didn’t know 
). That’s how I differentiate between the three different types of anime that I outlined above. What is the director’s intention when producing this anime? I believe that every director has a motivation for creating an anime. I also feel that you can clearly tell their intentions when you watch their work. Of course that’s a completely subjective feeling. You might feel that K-On! is a creative anime, or you might even deny the existence of a commercial anime completely.
Regardless, no matter how you slice it, I will never feel that K-On! or Working! can be considered an art on the level of Texhnolyze or Evangelion. Those animes set out with a clear goal – to show something about human nature. I can’t find the same meaning anywhere in K-On! To me, watching K-On! is like viewing another piece of post-modernist art. The first time someone just drew a box with a dot in it, that was really cool. The first time someone just put a urinal in the Louvre, that was really interesting. It said something about the evolution of human thought. Now though, you can literally put a pencil on top of paper and call it “art”. You can put a brick as an art exhibition and call it “art”. That type of art is not avant-garde or even creative art.
I believe that creative art must speak to the mind and stimulate thought in ways that haven’t been explored before. It is not enough to repeatedly ram the same emotion into the viewer numerous times and call it art. That’s why I have a problem with Key. I’ve felt the same emotion about 20 times already. Stop making me feel the same thing. Do something different! I’ve stopped considering Key works art a while ago. At this point, all they do is appeal to the emotional part of my brain, which has literally become numbed by the firing of the same neurons each time I watch a Key work. That’s also why I dislike Naruto and to some extent Bleach. I remember someone mentioning to me that the author of either Naruto or Bleach (forgot which), actually regretted ever writing Naruto/Bleach in the first place. When the author of the manga starts feeling that way, then you know that it’s for purely commercial purposes.
Seriously. I get it. Girls in snow. Move on please.
Yet on the topic of shounen animes, where does my division of animes leave them? I’d characterize them as a mix of commercial art and creative art. While yes, they are original in their own sense, they have never made me consider the world in a new way. I feel that they have been produced to satiate the masses. In a sense, they’re a bit like propaganda. They take the same elements and ram it into the viewer over and over again. That’s not really creative art, but it’s not fully commercialized either. I have a certain amount of respect for a show like FMA, which took the author’s original story and twisted it, but is now going back with Brotherhood to be much more faithful to the original story. Sure there might be an element of commercial success in it, but letting the artist express himself fully is always a path to anime being considered an art.
I probably ranted and digressed quite a bit, but going back to the original reason why I wrote this post – the comments in my previous post. I feel that the reason why you felt that anime isn’t necessarily escapism depends on the type of anime that you mostly watch. If you feel that anime is thought provoking, then you’ve probably watched many Avant-garde animes. If you feel that anime is meant to add on experiences, then you’re probably watching mostly creative animes. And if you feel that anime is purely entertainment, then you’re probably watching mostly commercial, but also some creative animes. But still, there is no denying that anime is an art form, and that it is legitimate. Now whether you agree with me about how I categorize anime as an art, that’s probably a different story.
41 Comments
Moe is indeed a commercial thing now. Just look at how they keep pumping out the same moeshit for all seasons just to be able to sell.
By the way AIC is branched into various sub-studios, like AIC, AIC ASTA, etc. So in effect, AIC is not doing 6 shows, but the different branches (and different teams) are. Not all of them are bad, just see Sora no Otoshimono and Nyan Koi! last year in winter for the good ones.
AIC ASTA CAN DO NO WRONG
JUST TAKE A FETHING LOOK AT THESE SHOWS.
GODANNAR, BAMBOO BLADE, ASTRO FIGHTER SUNRED.
ALL MADE OF WIN. WIN, I TELL YOU.
AIC is AIC. Anything that has the label AIC on it usuallly isn’t anything good >.>
They honestly do make me want to shoot myself.
No seriously, watch Sunred. It’s really good comedy ;-;
AIC ASTA =/= AIC. Really. Do not stereotype!
And you did not watch either Nyan Koi! or Soraoto, did you? :\
I haven’t watched Sunred, but I watched Nyan Koi! and Sora no Oto, and I tried To Heart as well. They were all just so terrible… I gave up on all of them.
I’m not going to challenge the bigger statements you have made here. I view anime as an art form. Your 3-part categorization is reasonable, since all such categorizations are essentially subjective anyways. I do want to challenge a couple of minor points you made.
First, you said, “What is the director’s intention when producing this anime? I believe that every director has a motivation for creating an anime. I also feel that you can clearly tell their intentions when you watch their work.” Regardless of the intention behind the creation, I believe it is for us, the anime viewers, unknowable. We might think something was made to generate some quick cash, by cramming some recently popular elements together, but the creator might have been sincere, and simply did a bad job of realizing their vision. Alternatively, someone can have nothing but the crassest intentions, but the audience might still find something of value; reading something “into” it, perhaps, but that shouldn’t devalue the experience of the audience, which was genuine, even if the creator’s motives weren’t.
Second, regarding “kitsch”: I don’t know that it is very easy to distinguish between “kitsch” and art. As tempting as it might be to try to make absolute distinctions here, I think the attitude of the viewer might be as important as the inherent value of the piece itself. One person can study the themes in an anime, or carefully observe the way it was assembled (perhaps collecting a cell-painting), and another person can approach the same anime in a light-hearted way, finding something goofy in it, and making it even more so. After all many fine paintings and sculptures of the past have been appropriated and used that way (American Gothic comes to mind).
Anyways, good essay; I’m really just quibbling around the edges.
(Just an add-on rather than a challenge/ qualification) Re: the old ‘the writer’s/ director’s intention’ idea – does it really matter? Well, to the writer/ director, yes, however, if you have to judge on the merits of the end product alone, however (un)knowable the original intention may be. You’ve both talked about the experience of the audience so I’ll try not to repeat anything further, however I guess I just wanted to highlight the significance of audience interpretation when it comes to judging the worth (for want of a better word) of a particular anime as an art form (the clearly commercial stuff aside…or maybe not…hmm…). In other words, is some interpretation more valid than others, and if so why? I don’t know, but surely some prior knowlege or experience would be required in this case, yay or nay?
I feel that you can definitely at least have an inkling of the director’s intentions. It is a rather subjective feeling, but even if the director has limited resources, he’ll find a way to get his message across if he truly wanted to. Yes, the audience has the ability to create meaning in any piece of art, but any impressions of the audience are ultimately crafted by the director himself.
The distinction between kitsch and “high art” as the art critics call it (never liked that term) is still heavily discussed today, and is far from clear. As I see it, kitsch is basically art that has been done over and over again, to the point that it can be cliche. In my view, harem and moe shows fall under this realm, mostly because they take a set formula and just do it over and over again. Same deal with Key works as well. The jury is still out as to whether you can truly label whole genres of art like Romanticism or the Renaissance as kitsch though.
As for the validity of the multitude of interpretations, I would say that there can be some interpretations that are more valid, but it’ll usually only be due to something like a misinterpreting of the source material or something like that.
“The first was that anime is pure entertainment, the second was that anime makes you think, and the third was that anime adds another bit of experience to your life. ”
It strikes me that these are qualities not very unique to anime. If that’s the reason to watch anime, then why not expand the group to shows of any kind that are entertaining, thought-provoking, or provide experiences, such as live action?
I think you’re spot on with this post – we watch anime because it’s animated. Sure, there are differences in plot, theme, and character in the three examples you list – K-ON!, Nodame Catabile, and Ergo Proxy – but what is common to them all is that they’re animated; there is no capture of a live actor.
All three too, are done with a high degree of technical skill. Sure, K-ON may lack the deep (and admittedly pretentious) philosophizing of Ergo Proxy, but the technical execution of the animation is absolutely top notch and is at least on a par, in fact, I daresay it’s more consistently well animated. And there’s just something incredibly fascinating about that – watching human motion reproduced and re-imaged in a completely different way.
Not really an entire comment, just an addition and agreement with part of what you said. The ‘because it’s animated’ part will obviously differ for people, but in technical terms it does make anime appealing in a way that’s unique from live action. A lot of techniques and actions can only happen in anime. I remember some times where I’ve seen drama adaptations of anime where they try to do some of the same things (like exaggerated movements or expressions) that just do not work in the live action medium.
There’s also a cost factor that effects genres. Anime has a lot more science fiction and fantasy shows than live action shows just due to the cost that is inherent in those genres. The special effects budgets required for live action sci fi and fantasy lead to very few being produced, especially when the market isn’t as huge as others, while a stupid reality show or traditional sitcom takes barely any money to make. I happen to like science fiction a lot, so that’s definitely one draw that anime has for me, though I watch all kinds of anime.
I definitely agree with your “because it’s animated” sentiment.
Yeah I agree with EO’s take on why we watch animation. I would also go back to my post on Anime and Escapism and pull out my statement concerning how fantastical anime is. Often times the settings in anime are just so absurd that it can’t be done in a real life setting. Other times there are things that can only be expressed in animation, e.g Mind Game.
Even though the technical execution of something like K-On or Mayoi Neko Overrun might be impressive, those animes are rather shallow and really only ask me to escape into their world rather than reconsider the world that I live in. It’s that feeling that I can’t stand about commercial animes.
Kampfer was definitely a “creative” anime in “commercial’s” clothing.
>>insert troll smile
Could even call it avant-garde
I certainly saw underlying commentary about the irrational nature of the current shoujo-ai market, and the general moe-market’s apathy towards what the apparent true sex of an object of moe is. Not to mention the great exercise of manipulating viewers into simultaneously accepting Natsuru’s traits–which were the same regardless of his gender–as both highly acceptable in a female and completely unacceptable in a male. It was great.
On the same note, I could argue that Fight Ippatsu! Juuden-chan!! was a neat commercial show that also merged in some level of commentary on the excesses of the current state of the rather open sexual fetishes of the culture in Japan (by flaunting it to great excess and totally unsubtly), and it did a fun thing with tearing open the double-standard relationship of gender and violence in anime.
Either way though, both such commentaries would only be apparent to someone very much fully steeped in the modern state of anime, its watchers, their fetishes, their genres, their tropes, etc. So I don’t blame most people for dismissing a lot of show as garbage either, in the case of alien viewers.
Haha you can inject meaning into anything really. Hell, if you can continue to analyze post-modernist art for the umpteenth time, then you can analyze shows like Kampfer and Fight Ippatsu! Juuden-chan!! too! Still, there is a point where you realize that these shows have stopped bringing anything new to the table and that it’s copying off of a multitude of shows/works that have tackled the theme earlier.
Wow AIC is making all of those shows? I didn’t realize that, but I did realize that all of those shows look horrible. I mean, I liked Strike Witches so I’ll watch this season, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good show (it is kind of….I wish they’d wear some fucking pants though). And I did like Nyan Koi!
Commercial anime…I view it the same way that I view most commercial music, particularly hip hop. Mainstream hip hop SUCKS. There might be a few good songs in there every now and then, but for the most part, it’s all crap. Same thing with commercial anime, although I’ll admit that there’s probably a lot more commercial anime that I enjoy than mainstream hip hop, which is now more like middle school pop music….maybe I’m just getting old.
I’m so glad you wrote this. I wish I knew more about anime as art, in order to enhance my pleasure and appreciation of it. Could you give a couple more features of what you call ‘avant-garde’ and ‘creative’ anime though, just so that it’s clearer in my head? Cheers. Also, would be helpful if you gave some more (popular) examples too, unless you think these all fall under ‘commercial’!
Hm, for animes that I characterize as avant-garde, I think shows like Akira, Ghost in the Shell, Texhnolyze, Lain, Evangelion, and Mind Game all fall neatly into that category. They all ask questions that went beyond what anime was tackling at the time, and I think they’re all still relevant in today’s society.
Creative animes would probably be something like Honey and Clover, Nodame Canatbile, 5 CM/S, Baccano!, Saraiya Goyou, and Spice and Wolf.
Of course take those categorizations lightly. Some animes might be a mix of multiple categories, and some are open to discussion. It’s not like I consciously consider which animes are commercial/creative/avant-garde in my head while I’m watching them!
Avant-Garde seems slightly off as label for the type of anime you to want to characterize with it. That’s not important though, just sayin.
To the article itself: To make it short: ~agreement
Just fyi: I’m mostly one of the avantguarde/creative watcher: I like animes with social commentary or (socio)political and philosphical elements. Or just with intricate characters/relationships.
Though I also somewhat regularity enjoy “mindless diversion shows” if I’m too exhausted or just not in the mood for something “heavier”.
Just a thing though: Anime is just a medium with all the fundamental characteristics of traditional media, which is why “the anime as art?” question kinda uninteresting/pointless since it answers itself once you categorize as just a medium. Since it’s really just up to what the creators want to do and manage to achieves: Just trash/fluff/commercial success or art might transcend time and space.
Where it get’s interesting though are media which are fundamentally different to traditional ones and where you can discuss if it can be art at all. Video games would be an example.
I couldn’t think of a better term to describe it, but Avant-garde seemed like it was close enough that people would understand where I was coming from, so I went with it
The way that I categorize different animes is just a way that I make sense of current trends in modern anime series. And my different categories of art are based on how I perceive the director’s motives in creating their anime series.
Why do I have the feeling that art = exploring human conditions always equates to “depressing or angry stuff”? What’s more to human condition than seeking happiness and friendship, or love or sex? That’s K-ON, and most moe.
About being commercial… you know, it’s commercial because people want moe, otherwise it wouldn’t sell. It’s elemental economics, supply and demand. Nobody wants floppy disks now, so don’t bother making them. So here we have the typical, eternal equation that “if it’s popular and not only for a small elite, then it’s automatically worthless garbage” The assumption is people aren’t really smart enough to know what is actually good, so they need to be guided by someone who has seen the light.
But why a work on human condition under evil capitalism that markets stuff should be “art”?
In fact, once art isn’t necessarily about form, that is, once you go beyond whether the visuals/sound/acting in an anime are good or not, then art becomes ideology – for me a terrible, foul word. I always use the same metaphor: the valuable work becomes that which doesn’t allow you to escape the smelly swamp of real world issues. The “serious” stuff (serious happens to have the connotations of “more valuable, more mature, better” grabs your feet, like an evil slimy tentacled monster, and drags you. Art means nothing then but a label that certain people use to decide what is aristocratic and what is not. To impose on people their obsessions about the 3D world. Maybe some people are afraid of someone being actually happy if they manage to stop caring about real world issues and problems, of actually managing to enjoy an escapist life? For people who care so much about “human condition” -with all its implications-, they are quick to become tyrants themselves, even if they aren’t aware of it, because they cannot conceive that some people should not want to care about that important stuff.
This is why I’ve stopped caring about art, a term laden with such connotations. For me, entertainment is what matters. A particular anime is good if it’s entertaining, and above all it if makes me laugh, or if there’s romance or friendship, if an ideal life is portrayed. Way better than if it analyzes the effect of ideological closure in popular (i.e. worthless) anime as a way of naturalizing certain capitalist structures that inform consumerist society.
The only reason why art feels that way is because generally the comedic side of things is shallow or has already been explored in enough depth that it doesn’t warrant discussion anymore. If you look at the general trend of art, a lot of controversial and really thought provoking pieces have questioned our humanity and trends of thought at the time. If you perceive it as “all art is depressing”, then so be it.
I’m all for works of art that examine friendship and happiness, but those animes have existed for the longest time. Evangelion tackled the question of how human relationships are ultimately important and necessary for the human existence. K-On takes that same message, and packages it in a fluffy way… Oh wait, that’s already been done before… Let’s add more comedy and different character designs! Yeah!
Yes, I know about basic economics, but the things that really cause us to question those basic beliefs is something that transcends merely what everyone already believes. What the people believe is not necessarily worthless garbage. After all, laws on murder and rape are probably not considered “worthless garbage” by anyone. It’s just that works independent of that influence challenge what’s already existing. If they fail to create social change, then so be it.
And I would think that a purely escapist sentiment is bad for people. Regardless, people are not FORCING you to look at reality with any sort of art, but the option is there if you ever want to. If you don’t want to, fine, go and watch your K-On!! I won’t stop you. If entertainment is all you care about, go ahead and consume as much as you want. Other people will be considering other questions about reality.
I’ve always seen the “Is it art?” debate as mostly pointless. Much like meaning, any artistic value you might perceive a series to hold relies on your experiencing it. That is to say, you must experience it for it to have any such value. And if art is such an artificial construct, why even bother? In the end you have a bunch of people squabbling over this or that series’ merits over another, with no sign of objectivity anywhere. Though the divisions you draw of commercial versus creative interest me somewhat, it does rest on the rather shaky ground of divining a director’s intentions. I would rather divide them along how they are presented. Maybe something like: those which challenge the viewer’s preconceptions, and those which conform to them. Though that again would lay the burden of proof on the viewer, if in a more provable manner.
At times I feel frustrated by the “is it art” debate myself because then we end up just defining art down to the most specific definition, which I think is a waste of time. I do believe that art is a method of expression that someone uses to get across his own views of the world or on a certain issue, and that this method of expression ultimately relies on the director. Some directors might get across multiple points of view across with one work, and the viewer must ultimately extract meaning from certain pieces of work.
If you ask me, it’s also unreliable to rely purely on viewer reactions to a piece of art. When you start getting Freudian interpretations of Hamlet, then you know people are literally grasping at straws to find meaning in something. It’s not a testament to Shakespeare’s genius that you can apply such meaning to his works, people are imposing their points to view onto something that’s incompatible. I think that the viewer interpretations are a testament to how well the director did his job in conveying his messages through his work of art.
That line of thinking encourages the notion that only the director’s intended meaning has any value. Suppose a director means to convey some message with his work, but no one sees it. Can you really say it’s there? Likewise, what if viewers insist on a reading the director specifically denies? Getting caught up in what the director may or may not mean by a certain scene, or frame, or line of dialogue only distracts from the larger discourse.
Not necessarily. It’s not that the viewer’s interpretations are wrong, but that they should be shaped through how the director presents his work. If the viewers find some crazy interpretation that doesn’t match the spirit of the work (like how I view the Oedipal Complex interpretation of Hamlet), then something surely went wrong.
As for your hypothetical questions, I think it’s impossible for a director to convey a message and for the readers to just completely miss the point. That’s more of a failure on the part of the director than anything else. But there have been instances where viewers insist on reading things in shows a certain way that the director didn’t intend. In those cases, the viewers are extracting meaning from nothing. You can’t take a work out of the context it was created in. The director had a purpose in doing everything, and you shouldn’t be superimposing your own self-fabricated purpose onto the director’s work.
I don’t think that arguing over whether the director means by a certain scene/frame/dialogue detracts from the main discourse at all. In fact, it should only strengthen it.
In my humble opinion (don’t hate me) I don’t think anime can just be classified into three types of art. Maybe you can but some work doing both. Lucky Star is an example I think. I can definitely call that commercial anime since its just probably milking money fore the sake of it (and they did). But at the same time I can call it creative because it used comedy in a different, refreshing way. It was kind of a parody which was pretty creative. In the other hand though I may be thinking too much and Lucky Star really was just a piece of shit with moemoe girls.
P.S.K-on is a different thing though. Its definitely crap (for me). Also AIC isn’t a bad studio itself. They just adapt shallow series. If you probably give them a substancial series to work on, they’d do it awesomely.
Yeah, there are animes that don’t neatly fit into any specific category. Some can be part of two categories, and some can even be all three. Trying to neatly categorize everything is so subjective that you can’t apply an extremely rigorous objective formula onto anything.
I thought CLANNAD was good. It’s, for me, Key’s masterpiece. You can think that Key’s just making series so that you can cry but I thought CLANNAD was made to make a story. I guess I got offended when you said Key ain’t art anymore.
Call Air and Kanon crap and all but dont mess with CLANNAD. ( Dont take me too seriously.)
I thought Clannad was probably the best out of all the Key adaptations if only because After Story took the drama to outside of the school and social atmosphere, and it focused a lot more on familial tensions. It still felt eerily similar to Air and Kanon at some points though.
Again imho the “is anime art?” discussion is kinda pointless since it’s just a medium: Via that medium art can be created, but its really up to the creators what they wanna do with it and up to the viewers what they expect/want from the creators.
The question I think people are struggling with is more fundamental: What is art? And this is an open question which will never have *the one* answer, it’s really just a subjective matter.
@Sergio:
And I think it’s absolutely natural if you want your shows to be entertaining. I expect the same of the show I watch. The question is though is: Can it be only entertaining if it’s instantly gratifying? For me a brilliant philosophical/sociopolitical/psychological show will fascinate me and stimulate my thoughts. And because of that I’m already entertained, add a good plot/characters/music and I’m euphoric. And even if the content is depressing if that show manages to really get me thinking it will almost automatically lift my spirits.
Nobody ever said art has to be depressing or is only restricted to the human condition
But yeah, I have no respect whatsoever for art snobs (or any other kind for that matter) and I can thoroughly enjoy for example a mindless comedy devoid of any common sense (in fact I love non sequitur comedies). My point being I can respect the stance: “Stay away with heavy shows, RL is heavy enough I don’t need that in my entertainment”
The problem though is that you seem to condemn “art shows” in general or to put all “art lovers” into one pot. Which would put you on the same level of the art snobs, basically it’d be the pot calling the kettle black.
Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, just sounded like that to me.
Ah, forgot about the AIC discussion:
Since AIC is split into different subgroups (actually I thing many studios are like that it’s just that AIC made it official) it’s nonsense to talk about AIC as a whole, especially since the different groups have very different track records. I agree that the “main” AIC branch (the one without any suffix) mostly produce low-quality shows some of the subgroups seem to be quite good. One of them has history of producing highly acclaimed comedies (forgot the suffix) and one of the younger subgroups also seems promising.
I believe AIC is spread into four different branches: AIC, AIC Plus, AIC A.S.T.A, and AIC Spirits. I didn’t like any of Asta’s shows that I watched, though there has been some acclaim for Sora no Oto, which I thought was a flop.
AIC Plus doesn’t have that big of a track record, with their only show that I remember being that Art class one (forgot the name) from last season, and the one they’re doing this season. I don’t think their previous show got too much positive feedback, and from I watched of it, it wasn’t that good.
AIC Spirits I’ve barely heard of, but I have heard good things about Ga-Rei Zero, which I haven’t gotten around to watching yet. Of course, I haven’t heard anything about anything else they’ve done, so that can’t be good.
AIC’s other branches mostly do supplemental animation for a variety of different shows (I remember that one of AIC’s branches did some animation for FMA), so their track record isn’t that large. AIC’s main studio handles a lot of major animation work, and that’s the one I’m lambasting. Even if you discount AICPlus’s work next season, the main studio is still doing 3 shows, which I think is retarded.
I agree with most of what you outline in this post. I suspect however that a significant proportion of anime is, and always has been, commercially driven. Like all areas of film and TV, the lion’s share is to entertain and make money and the minority is remembered for doing something more than that. Anyway.
I enjoyed both Clannad and its After Story, but haven’t felt tempted to watch any more Key adaptations. Once was enough for me. And yeah, the K-On!! OP is awful. I didn’t mind the first season’s tune but I skip through that to get to the episode itself. Odd, because I like the end theme more than the Don’t Say Lazy thing. Cake + 80s fashions seems to work for me!
Defining art is well nigh impossible but I particularly like your categories of commercial. creative and avant-garde. Personally I love the creative ones, sample avante-garde ones as often as my intellect can stand (there aren’t enough of them made in the first place, so it’s highly unlikely that my viewing schedule gets saturated with them anyway!), and watch the occasional commercial one like Lucky Star or K-On to give my brain a rest when I’ve had a tiring day at work.
You know, you could really run a whole series of posts like this. Hidamari Sketch, for instance, is light, undemanding fun so is strictly speaking commercialised…and yet, it has some creative and almost avante-garde aspects thanks to the insane genius of Shinbo’s direction.
My philosophy is to watch as wide a variety as possible…although the three-way description of yours makes that process a bit easier. Approved!
“I suspect however that a significant proportion of anime is, and always has been, commercially driven. Like all areas of film and TV, the lion’s share is to entertain and make money and the minority is remembered for doing something more than that”
Agree on that. The good thing though is that it’s seems that’s still possible in the anime industry to make art aat all or yet be somewhat successful with it. In other industries this has become practically impossible.
Woah I thought I responded to this. Guess not.
Yeah I agree that it’s at times hard to find a solid distinction between commercial and non commercial. It’s not like you can’t consider an anime part of two different categories though!
And I also agree that the overwhelming majority of anime is commercially driven. That’s also probably why those that try to present a message are so well recognized – they are the minority.
Echoing Martin’s remark on ‘commercial’.
The given taxonomy doesn’t work for me precisely because the ‘commercial’ category wraps the vast majority of every anime produced, be it creative or avant-garde. I think a better termed category would be ‘popular’ rather than ‘commercial’. If it were another entertainment medium, say music or short films, the taxonomy from this entry would be more appropriate; it would then be wise to include independent in the categorization. The indie category also should be mentioned for completeness, because there are anime works which fall within the bounds.
Cheers.
The term “popular art/anime” in a way overlaps the other genres even more than “commercial art/anime”. If you look at it in terms of popularity, then there are shows like Evangelion that can fall into that category while also falling into the realm of creative/avant-garde. If you look at it in terms of just “popular genres”, then that’s far too encompassing to work with creative/avant-garde.
I’m not sure what “independent art/anime” would comprise of, perhaps give a few examples?
Don’t be hatin!
seriously…
moe is just degrading each time it was used incorrectly…
It’s strange that some shows seem to be low key, but in reality are more flashy than anything.
Examples are K-ON!, B Gata H Kei, and Working!!; they aren’t being discrete at all!!
(How can a restaurant manager have her own personal army of guards?)
Commercial anime seem to have in-your-face characters, or wild-with-imagination settings; usually comedy or action shows fit this category. Strangely, creative and avant garde anime tend to go for a more realistic setting, as in “I don’t need cat-eared, cat-tail people in my show!” The characters also seem to be a LOT quieter as well ( No clinging-to-my-childhood friend-for-dear-life characters, with auto-targeting tendencies; this can include roomates and even total strangers!)
The risk is that they tend to be a bit “boring” to most people. White Album is the best recent example of this type; how many people have seen this show?
Here’s a better example: how many have seen Kono Aozora ni Yakusoku wo?
I guess my point is.. I agree with you. Art, in anime, is something that makes you think, without having to resort to using a multitude of “art tricks” (drawing magical powers, monsters, SDs, etc.), or making the characters so wild that, at times, they feel unnatural to the setting and story they are in.
Commercial anime can be fun, but too much of it seems like a waste.