Found this recently - http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/review_essays/mescallado80.htm
>"..., that one of comics’ greatest assets is its "junk" stigma and the freedom this allows the medium. But without that sense of junk-culture perspective, without the understanding that this is ephemera that only occassionally aspires to art, the desire to elevate the accomplishments of certain creators—or to exoticize manga and anime simply because they’re Japanese (and as any visit to an anime convention will amply prove, there are many American otaku who are aggressively Japanophilic) —would be too tempting."
Enlighten me /a/.
If you have to ask then it isn't, at least not for you.
Men are willing to admit that they are sinners, but not that they are sinning. Making anime popular is inviting the devil in.
>Is 50 shades of gray art?
>Is Ulysses art?
Anime as a medium can be artistic just like any storytelling medium, anime in general isn't very (with the exception of graphical art)?
>combination of different art forms
objectively speaking, you're a faggot.
Art is anything that is the creative expression of someone's ideas, thought and feelings. Anime can be art, yes, but there are a lot of anime nowadays that does not express anything significant and is solely made to sell LNs or waifu merchandise. Whether or not you think an anime is, and yes I'm going to say it, art or good art at that is completely subjective.
But that's wrong. Literature is all shit, music is all shit, and poetry is all shit. Anime is objectively better than all of them.
See, I can also make blanket generalizing statements with so supporting evidence or reason for why I think that whatsoever
What are the prerequisites for something to be considered art? There are definitely some anime that have generated intense disgust in me, does that mean that particular anime was art then?
>Anime tells a story through visuals and audio.
>Literature tells a story though words.
Don't judge the medium, judge the story.
There really isn't a lot of artsy Anime, but there is some, and it's generally not shit. Your perception of what anime can aspire to is probably based on shit like "Pantsu Warriors 63" and similar shit - That tells more of the kind of people that consume the content than the content that the medium can produce.
You seem like someone who is only pretending to be into art.
First of all, you shouldn't mention "literature" and "poetry" as if they're distinct from each other.
"Poetry" is a subset of "literature".
Next, "sculpture" is not an art form and even then those are pedestrian as fuck, if you disregard the technical skill required to make them.
Yay postmodernist criticism
"Perfoming arts" is either fucking garbage (muh so artsey postmodern performances) or a subset of either music (opera) or literature (drama)
Music is undeniably the most plebeian form of art, since it exists to please, except for relatively few exceptions.
Anime is a visual art form and superior to live-action film in theory.
Practically all anime produced, bar a few exceptions, is garbage, though.
>What are the prerequisites for something to be considered art?
There are literally none.
The main prerequisite is that a critic says it's art.
And I do mean "critic" in the most literal sense of the word.
A lot of things are art (like animu), but there is a lot of difference in how much artistic merit is in each work. Generic moeshit doesn't have a lot of artistic merit, but stuff like MEMEME, has quite a lot because of the way it challenges the typical way to approach problem.
'muh art' thread #15532
When will faggots stop forcing the art card on anime, video games, whatever?
Who said they weren't? I was only pointing out that combining different forms of art is not something unique or something that necessarily gives greatness to an art creation. You can combine different art forms and end up having a shitty product anyways.
Art can be shitty. I don't know what your fucking point is but you seem to be confused. Anime is art. The combination of artistic elements resulting in a shitty product can still be art.
You obviously implied that performances, cinema and architecture are art so why isn't anime art?
I agree with most of the people that have posted so far.
For everything you have to take it in a case by case basis to determine if it is art or not. I would suggest art is something that gets you thinking or that leaves you in awe.
for example I think dub-step is just some greasy kids rolling there face on a keyboard and calling it music but other people love it enough for it to be considered its own genre.
I would say the same for anime there is so much shit out there that doesn't deserve to be called art but then there some shows that get you thinking.
Personally I think Mushishi is art. Every episode I take something away from the experience and the whole vibe of the show is just soothing for me.
>"sculpture" is not an art form
>it exists to please
>Anime is a visual art form and superior to live-action film in theory
Please tell me you're trolling. This is wrong on so many levels I would need to write a whole book to correct you completely.
And yet you have absolutely no reading comprehension in the slightest. Maybe you should actually learn shit instead of regurgitating the same shit to your teachers that they've "taught" you.
This means nothing. A fat fucking tard creates more shit than 5 good artists on a daily basis.
On what basis, faggot? You've proven you can't even keep up with the conversation.
Enjoying something and calling it shit just means you are LYING you stupid fuck, and clearly it is NOT SHIT to you because YOU ENJOY IT.
The only art that generates intense disgust is bad art, and is incredibly easy to make. And incredibly easy to fool mentally stunted retards to think that it's somehow valuable.
It's fucking embarrassing to have to explain this to somebody who claims they have some kind of degree related to the topic.
>it exists to please
All art exists to please.
All anime is art, it's just got different levels of artistic merit. Artistic merit is also a slightly subjective thing, and Mushishi gives you something and that is a form of artistic merit.
>"sculpture" is not an art form
It's definitely not called "sculpture", no matter where you go or who you talk to.
>"I let the audience mutilate me and give them a chance to kill me"
>"I'm not famous anymore"
>Music that doesn't exist to please
Except for noise derivatives (which arguably exist to please) I'm drawing a blank here.
>Anime is a visual art form and superior to live-action film in theory
You can express a lot more things with drawings that with actual actors and cameras.
What about offensive art then? Say I draw a drawing of your waifu that's really fucking degrading, but I make it thought provoking. Because you don't find my art "pleasing", does that mean that it is not art?
When people ask "is X art" they're not exactly asking if it's art, but something along the lines of:
"m-my chinese cartoons are on the same level as shakespeare and michelangelo aren't they, p-please tell me they are, i need validation to keep on living on :((((("
People who actually like animus don't give a shit about this non-debate
>he's not brainwashed by the same bullshit I am, so he's ignorant
>It's sure as hell isn't to fucking educate. Or to make you think either.
>You can express a lot more things
First: that's just wrong. You can express different things, not more. There's a lot cinema can do that anime will never be able to match. Anime will never reach the level of detail cinema has to offer when showing a character's emotional reactions and body language, for example.
Second: since when art quality is measured in the amount of things it can express? that has nothing to do with one form of art being "better" than other.
Arguments are quite frequently made that anything intrinsically didactic or educational is not art. Art captures an element of living as an experential condition of the subject, it is fundamentally affective by nature. Art is defined within the aesthetic merit of a work and not its message or agenda or intent.
For example, it is intuitively clear to anyone that a formal textbook is not art (feel free to dispute this if you disagree). If you wrap the content of that textbook in pretty words and connotative metaphor, the content remains unartistic. Art is instead found in those 5-dollar words and turns of phrasing with which the denotative content is conveyed. The means of expression themselves- the method by which the thoughts or ideas are made to reach the audience- define art.
Quite a few people have already said what I'm about to say, and they've more or less been ignored because replying to shitposters and bait is more fun.
Anime is an art form. Not every anime produced achieves the pinnacle of artistic merit. There are some anime that are very artsy. There are some that are not.
Sure and something like Disney's Fantasia could never have been made with actual actors.
Body Language and expression are by default faulty, since you're hiring people to pretend.
>Second: since when art quality is measured in the amount of things it can express? that has nothing to do with one form of art being "better" than other.
Why would it not?
Tell me, what is the purpose of art?
>they've more or less been ignored
Are replies like upvotes to you or something?
IF THEY'VE BEEN "IGNORED" THAT MEANS THAT NOBODY SAW FIT TO REMARK ON WHAT THEY WROTE
Fucking get a clue how an anonymous imageboard works faggot.
>your favourite thing isn't Dostoewsky and it should change because reasons
Judging by the amount of shit animu shat out, it's art already.
Now all we need is hipster critics to shut down anything that isn't made by friends, relatives, or fukkbois, and the picture will be complete.
Anime can convey emotion in ways cinema can't because it's not limited to reality. Cinema can only do what real actors can do, but animation can go beyond that. We're arguing about theory here, so you can't fall back on the huge difference in production values and cost of production between what actually gets published.
An art form that offers greater artistic freedom to the creator is better in the sense that it lets them do what they want to do instead of restricting them. The reliance on human actors is very restrictive and outright prevents doing some outlandish character types properly.
Presuming consciousness is not mechanistic.
The audiences perception and author's intent are fundamentally different properties, the latter is not discernible by the former (and presuming so is a fallacy of intent). There is no necessary goal carried by the aesthetic form of a statement, it is not necessary for their to be deliberate intent behind a structure of verse or layout of mise en scene for it to exist as such, and whatever the audience subject discerns from is fundamentally removed from the consciousness of the author.
If you want to be really semantic and say 'everything is purposive by definition', then I would amend the statement to be that whatever purposive nature art may contain is entirely irrelevant to the perception and understanding of it as such.
I said anime is shit judging it from an art perspective, objectively (as much as it's possible, that is). That means coming outside of my own subjective taste and personal bias and analyzing it using reasonable arguments and valid comparisons.
I enjoy anime as casual entertainment, that doesn't mean I would exhibit it in a museum or talk about it with my peers as if it were remotely comparable to the pieces I consider masterful.
>The only art that generates intense disgust is bad art, and is incredibly easy to make.
You would be surprised how hard it is to create art that generates disgust but is actually meaningful and perdures in history, more so if you're attempting to break some convention or make some kind of statement. "Merda d'artista" or "fountain" have caused intense disgust at the moment of their creation and now they are fundamental pieces to the most recent part of art's history. Even Beethoven's 9th symphony was met with disgust at the moment of it's creation (the choir was especially outrageous) and now pretty much everyone aknowledges it as art and appreciate to some degree.
It can be high art. There is not a lot of "high art" anime, but (and this varies a bit by subjective) there is some like IMO I think NGE is among the most artsy stuff I've seen in anime and in general and I've read loads of artsy shit just to be able to discuss it at uni.
>The audiences perception and author's intent are fundamentally different properties
If so then any author wouldn't be able to communicate ANYTHING at all. And since that's blatantly untrue, then so is your statement.
The feelings engendered within the audience IS the author's intent. Even if there is deviation between different subjects, that doesn't mean he didn't, for all intents and purposes, "intend" them.
Of course, some no-talent retard can go, "oh but it was meant to be ugly" and, sure who knows it could have been because you never know, he could have just not cared about it and anybody liking it and so purposely didn't cultivate the necessary skills. Or some guy who happened to make something that is regarded as a masterpiece by accident and lies that it was all intended. Either way, there is absolutely no way you can tell if they are lying, so authors intent should barely matter at all as far as perception is concerned.
Nietsche himself wrote: "[I]t is certainly best to separate an artist from his work so completely that he cannot be taken as seriously as his work. He is after all merely the presupposition of his work, the womb, the soil, in certain cases the dung and manure, on which and out of which it grows – and consequently, in most cases, something that must be forgotten if the work is to be enjoyed."
PS. Not everything is "purposive", if it was, then the word, and the concept, would be USELESS to us.
It would be argued that anything funded through investment of private capital, produced for a general audience, used to market merchandise or produced with the intent of making money could not be art simply because the commonly accepted (though not clearly defined) perceptions of high art implicitly exclude products or commodity of economic activity.
An arbitrary standard that would narrow your available pool of anime to be considered down to pretty much independent and demonstrative projects produced for the sake of tax benefits or through government funding. Kinda silly, I think
No, in the same way that a comic or television show is not considered high art.
Most anime is targeted either to children or to young adult males of a low-status subculture staying up past midnight. As a medium, anime is inherently low art.
Yep. To pull in some other art, we have Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, that was a story he wrote when he was fucked up. Arguably his biggest success.
That Gainax ran out of $ during production doesn't reduce the value of the story.
Hey, you both got your "real" ending in the movie and having a separate "scrapped" ending gives it more meaning.
You should be thankful that Anno can't budget for shit, it would have given you a shallower experience.
Thank you, anon!
It's like you don't wanna come and join in on the fun :(
Any means of expression through a medium is art. You wouldn't say writing is not art because of shitty fanfiction. 2/10 got me to reply.
Anime isn't art because saying that anime is art is as retarded as saying that anime is a "style". Anime is the word for products of an animation industry located on a certain island nation.
Animation is art, or if a general statement like that displeases you then SOME animations are art.
Anime is not a style. Anime is not a genre. Anime is not a medium. Anime is a word for a specific industry and "an industry" can't be "art".
>Anime is the blanket term for Japanese Animated Material
Yes you are correct
>It's a medium.
No you are not correct.
"live action" is a medium "watercolor" is a medium. "pen and paper" is a medium. "electronic" is a medium.
The medium anime is in is called "animation". There is nothing special about the production methods of generic anime for it to be classified as its own medium.
>film>animation>paint-on-glass animation/traditional animation/CG animation/stop motion/etc.
That's the hierarchy of animation mediums. Anime can in fact be any of those mentioned methods
I edited in the "products of" afterwards, and forgot to add it in to the other one
>I edited in the "products of" afterwards, and forgot to add it in to the other one
Then I say you're wrong. Anime can be or not be art, just like Bollywood movies can be or not be art.
It's not about it being part of the economy and making money, it's about the intention behind it. Manga, for example usually starts as means for an author to tell a story, then it becomes famous and makes money. But anime a lot of times is simply used as a device to boost the source material's sales. There's also the problem of it being an adaptation of a story already told, but that's a whole other debate already.
And similarly you wouldn't say "bollywood is art". It's not bollywood that's "art", it's film that is art. Bollywood isn't a medium.
Saying "anime is art" is saying "Japanese animation is art" which has the implication that animation from other countries isn't necessarily art in your opinion. That's why it's retarded to say "anime is art", and that's why it's also retarded to ponder whether anime is art or not. it's not anime that is or isn't art, it's animation.
Jesus Christ, I can't believe you fucks are actually arguing over this. Not even the close-minded old fart that was Roger Ebert would've claimed that anime isn't art.