>>138320071 All you nigs are talking about personal taste, obviously, but in terms of pure writing and execution, substance outside of simple personal taste, Hibike is probably Kyoani's most perfect show.
Whether you think it's boring, yuri-baiting, stupid moeshit fag trash whatever, putting all that aside, it's flawlessly executed. The story and characters are well and effectively written. It has a large cast of characters who all feel relevant and effectively utilized, which is impressive as fuck. They all have these little arcs. Hazuki, the president, Kaori, even the background girls like percussionist chick is given an arc despite having no speaking lines. The first season accomplished everything it needed to while establishing tons of heavy shit for the second season. The story is obviously really simple, but it's just out of the way, and that was obviously the intent. It's all about the characters.
The direction is simply beyond anything else that's happening in the industry, period. The use of visual storytelling primarily sets it apart because it is important, clear, not lamp-shaded at any point, and most importantly, it's not overwrought. Next there's the beautiful visual symbolism, the poetry of the visuals throughout the series with the repeated shots and all the little choices that were made. Finally come the general composition which could easily be written off as standard anime fare but is actually consistently fantastic, and the art, which regardless of muh filters (a stylistic critique, not a substantive one), is gorgeous. The colors, the instruments, the designs, the locations.
>paragraph here about music / score
Hyouka is obviously more interesting and original (while still fitting into the after school club cliche), but it was also more obviously flawed. Oreki and Chitanda just didn't have much going on, and there were lots of weak points in the story. Hibike was a perfect concise package. Apples and oranges.
>>138327014 It's good to be passionate but remember that anyone eloquent enough could write something equally convincing about their favourites too. I agree with a lot of what you say, but "most perfect show" is letting your opinions speak outside their jurisdiction.
>>138327014 If it's boring, then it's not flawlessly executed, you fucking idiot. I'm so tired of people who think quality is objective trying to argue "Even if you didn't like a thing, if it meets these arbitrary standards so you have to admit it's good!"
>>138329428 You're not wrong. I'm trying to think of it pretty objectively and just in terms of execution, which is a lot simpler than thinking of it in terms of style, taste, or audience appeal. Obviously this is colored by my own experience.
I guess the way I see it is that Kyoani has been refining their production technique for years. They have done a good job of identifying their own strengths and emphasizing those strengths. When you look at their catalog you can see how they've continually experimented and incorporated the results of those experiments into their technique. There's a very specific thing that they do, and they've gotten to the point where they do it very, very well.
The important thing about this is that it's independent of what material they end up working with. They obviously like character-driven work, but it definitely seems like the choices they're making are not about creating the most interesting, original, artistically rewarding stuff out there. Phantom World pretty much cements that reality.
I guess my point is that I think Hibike was almost flawless in its execution, but I probably wouldn't have chosen THAT story. I can certainly understand why plenty of people wouldn't like it. Like this >>138329809 guy. Personally, I have very broad tastes. I'll watch and enjoy just about everything that is great in its construction and has enough plot points to hang together. But finding Hibike boring is perfectly valid. Also,
>If it's boring, then it's not flawlessly executed
That's simply not true.
>I'm so tired of people who think quality is objective
Aren't you doing the same thing by saying:
>If it's boring, then it's not flawlessly executed
>trying to argue "Even if you didn't like a thing, if it meets these arbitrary standards so you have to admit it's good!"
I'm not saying it's good. I'm saying it's flawlessly executed. As an independent thought, I'm also saying I enjoyed it. "Good" and "well executed" are two separate things.
>>138329959 >I'm not saying it's good. I'm saying it's flawlessly executed. As an independent thought, I'm also saying I enjoyed it. "Good" and "well executed" are two separate things. And to clarify even further, my saying I enjoyed it also doesn't mean that I think it was "good." Nothing here is a claim that it was "good." I'm not reviewing it here, I'm critiquing it.
Also, if I had my druthers (in some obviously nonsensical hypothetical where I'm the president of kyoani), then I would not have chosen Hibike for Kyoani to produce. It's a decent story, but there's certainly a lot more interesting stuff to be had.
Basically, you finding Hibike boring is not interesting by itself. The question is WHY you found it boring. If the answer is, "because I don't care about high school girls in band having homoerotic drama problems," then you have a problem with the story. If the answer is, "because the direction is listless, the dialog is uninspired, and it's boring to look at," then your problem is with the execution.
>>138329959 Implying you can say flawlessly executed don't suggest something is good.
I'm not >>138329809 this guy, but I'd have prefered to say that boring isn't an objetive critism. I personaly considered, for example, Hyouka boring, but Hibike is far from that. At least it had some substancial goal more than just resolve trivial stuffs that 99% of the people give a shit.
Hibike is really well done but is not perfect. However, boring? Naah
>>138329959 Still, something like "flawlessly executed" can only really indicate flawlessly being executed according the things you personally like. I hate being that guy who plays the "well actually it's all relative :^)" card, but I think discussing its objective aspects without using them as reason to shame others for not liking it as much as you do is a lot more constructive. Saying shit like "it's better than everything else in the industry!" only provokes people. That's all I'm trying to say here, this kinda talk triggers me.
>>138329959 >I'll watch and enjoy just about everything that is great in its construction What does this even mean? It's like when you ask someone what music they like and they say "I don't really have specific tastes, I like any good music." That's not describing anything.
>>138330362 >Implying you can say flawlessly executed don't suggest something is good. Suggest, sure, prove, no. Correlation suggests causation, it does not prove it. Quality of execution is correlated with the entertainment value of the resultant product, but it's only one factor. El Topo was very well executed, but I certainly didn't enjoy it.
>>138330445 I was probably a bit hyperbolic there, admittedly, but:
>something like "flawlessly executed" can only really indicate flawlessly being executed according the things you personally like. You're getting to one of the fundamental struggles of artistic critique. What constitutes "good?" What is beauty? What is art? I'm not going to try and answer those questions here, because I don't believe anybody can, but I can give you the short version:
"Good" is subjective, yes, but it's also cultural and social. As critics it is our job to not only understand our own concept of "good" and "bad," but also the common social understanding of what is "good" and "bad." Understanding our own taste, understanding the tastes of the general and various specific audience groups, and differentiating between those is what critique is all about.
When I say that Hibike is "flawlessly executed," that is obviously founded upon my understand of what good execution is in the context of socially accepted notions of good and bad execution. Saying, "you can't say that something is flawless or perfect" is wrong. I can say that. It's my opinion as a critic. Don't dismiss it because it sounds like an absolute. If you disagree with the actual statement that it is flawless, then you disagree with my understanding of the socially accepted notion of what is good, or you think that I have let my personal taste interfere with that social understanding. Either way, you think I'm a bad critic, which is fine. But all of the opinions of a critic should be viewed in their context as just that: opinions of a critic.
>>138330493 I can see why that would be confusing, it was sort of off-the-cuff. I should have said "great in its execution," but I felt like I had already used that word way too many times.
It means that I enjoy strong direction and character work more than I do a strong plot or exploration of theme. It's the reason I like GiTS:SAC more than GiTS '95, and Gunbuster more than Evangelion. It means that I know my own taste very well, and account for my own taste when discussing things in terms of critique.
>>138330992 Because that's the basis for all critique. Notice I said "critique," here, not "baseless personal experience." Whether I personally enjoy something is completely separate from whether I think it is critically "good." This means that I can like something but also understand why most people would not like it, and vice versa. It's one of the most basic things you need to understand before approaching insightful critique.
>>138331122 >disappearance is the only good thing about haruhi Even if this is true, Disappearance does not stand on its own. The reason Disappearance is great is because of how it serves as this massive culmination of everything that came before. It makes the series worthwhile by the power of its own greatness. If the whole series hadn't been spent intricately setting up Disappearance then we wouldn't still be talking about it.
>>138330849 I reject art criticism in general. Completely unnecessary. Regardless, saying something is perfect is indeed as absolute as saying 1 + 1 = 2. I think if you intend for your opinions as a critic to be viewed as the opinions of a critic then you should deliver them as opinions instead of absolutes.
>>138331315 >Because that's the basis for all critique. Okay, but that doesn't really feel like an answer. Why would anyone bother doing critique, then? I mean, I get that arguing over your own opinion with random people online when neither of you are likely to ever persuade the other to change their minds is already sort of silly, but arguing over the "opinion" of a different standard established independently of either of you seems to take it to the next level. Even if you could both come to an agreement on whether or not it was "good" by this standard, it doesn't feel like it'd yield anything interesting.
>>138331414 >I reject art criticism in general. Completely unnecessary. The problem with this is that if nobody bothered to think critically about art then art would be intellectually stunted. You're basically saying that great art routinely happens without a fundamental critical understanding its own context, which is a confused notion. Artists who don't have a critical understanding of their own field of art are statistically insignificant. Specifically, they're called "outsider artists." Their work is certainly novel and can be very interesting, but for lack of a better idiom, it generally does not compete with institutional art.
>you should deliver them as opinions instead of absolutes. You're choosing to read them as absolutes. You know that they are opinions by their very nature, yet you're here arguing with me because I didn't prepend my opinions with "I think," or "I feel." That's just pedantry.
>>138331444 You're describing the reason there is no valuable discourse on /a/. A valuable discourse has structure, and /a/ is anarchy. Everybody on /a/ has an opinion, but all of those opinions are unexamined. These fundamental underpinnings of discourse, the difference between being critically good and personally enjoyed, between being well executed and being well conceived, and in the case of /a/ specifically, an understand of what direction actually is, are missing. And because of this, because the language of the discourse has not established, fruitful discussion is not forthcoming. If you've ever wondered, "why does discussion always suck on /a/? One guy likes it, the other doesn't, discussion ends." Well, this is your answer (in addition to shitposting). Because those people don't try to figure out WHY they like or dislike something. And regardless of how much you think you're an individual, you're formed by the culture you're a part of.
Art critique is the study of why you, or somebody else, either does or does not like something. So, ask yourself why you like something. Because of your subjective taste, right? Right. But society's role in developing your taste is apparent. There's a collective taste with which your own personal taste is intrinsically linked. Yours is individual, certainly, but it also overlaps largely with the collective. Critique is a process of understanding and applying your own taste, the amorphous collective taste(s), and the relationship between the two.
You might be thinking "that sounds dumb," or "that has no value." But think of it this way: One practical application is that the color red is associated with warmth and blue is associated with cold. How much is this social, and how much is it instinctual? Is it something that's just accepted by society or is it built into our lizard brain? Or is it some combination of the two? If we want to portray one of these concepts, "hot," or "cold," is there a correct color to choose? If I'm a film editor looking for the best beat upon which to place a cut, is there one that can be called more correctly "natural?" Is my honed sense of where cuts should go based purely on an art I created on my own, or am I building upon a long history of experience and social precedent? Understanding that experience and that precedent, and being able to discuss it in educated terms and given various contexts, is what critique is.
>>138331997 >great art Art is just art, great to certain people and something else to others. To think art should be a certain way is super constricting. All that comes from art criticism that I can see is a limitation on individualism. Having a canon pushes people towards a certain subset of the arts, shames dissidents, and belittles the importance of non-canonical works. All because of what? Some academic's opinions? >pedantry It has its place. Inattention to language breeds confused thoughts and misunderstandings. You have interesting ideas but framing them with your words as facts and delivering an argument instead of a discussion buries them.
>>138332294 All of this belies a fundamental misunderstanding of art theory. There is ALWAYS a canon. It's emergent. It's not good or bad, it's just the way it is. There are things about it which you might think are good or bad, but you've got to take the good and the bad, because they're built into human nature. Art theory did not create the canon, art theory seeks only to understand it and allow us to speak about it.
>>138332294 >Having a canon pushes people towards a certain subset of the arts, shames dissidents, and belittles the importance of non-canonical works. You constructed this sentence in a way which presents your subjective opinion about having a canon as indisputable fact, were I to read it in an intentionally naive manner. You shitlord.
>>138332412 I'm not denying that social groups gravitate towards certain things, I'm saying that taking those things and formulating a "what you should and should not like" list is more harmful than beneficial.
>>138332605 Isn't it fact though? The fact that someone who doesn't consider Bach or Shakespeare great isn't taken seriously in most circles attests to it. I get your point though, which is why I don't like playing the subjectivity card. It's too "easy" I guess.
Regardless I'll prolly drop this soon because I'm watching Utena and I'm getting super into it.
>>138332412 And I don't really want to talk about the canon, because I don't give much of a shit about understanding it or about understanding why I like something (except so far as it would help me find other things, I guess, but I can do that without examining cultural conditioning most of the time).
>>138332276 > If I'm a film editor looking for the best beat upon which to place a cut, is there one that can be called more correctly "natural?" This is different. This is considering how something will affect your audience in general, as a practical concern in crafting a work. If you're evaluating the piece for how successfully it attempts to appeal to its target audience, that might be worth considering, but this again seems like a waste of time, unless you yourself need that knowledge to help you craft a work to appeal to a certain target audience.
>>138332720 >formulating a "what you should and should not like" list This is an unfair characterization. You're jumping from simply trying to understand why people do or do not like something, to actively trying to influence them. It's an academic pursuit. Are you saying there's no value in trying to understand why people like things, and only harm can come from it?
>I don't give much of a shit about understanding it or about understanding why I like something An unexamined life is not worth living.
>unless you yourself need that knowledge to help you craft a work to appeal to a certain target audience. But this is the whole point! It's a discourse, an analysis, an understanding, a science of art. If I want to create art to impact an audience, I want to understand how to effectively communicate with that audience. Should I do all original research toward that goal? Or is it better if there's a literature on the topic, with as many eyes on it as possible?
You seem to think of critique as this antagonistic thing which forces people into little holes. I think of it as a language in which we make up a new word whenever something comes along that we don't recognize. Theory is not in itself reductive, badly applied theory is. Are you really going to enjoy Utena as much as you possibly could if you don't recognize its genius application of art nouveau styling?
>>138333151 >An unexamined life is not worth living. No.
>If I want to create art to impact an audience, I want to understand how to effectively communicate with that audience. Should I do all original research toward that goal? Or is it better if there's a literature on the topic, with as many eyes on it as possible? If the goal is purely practical (learn how people respond to certain things in art so that creators can craft with that knowledge in mind), or academic (learning how people respond to these things just for the sake of knowing it), then either way I don't see why it'd be relevant to evaluating quality of a show or whether it's "the best." Imagine if you talked about candy bar quality and someone with a magically perfect understanding of the chemistry and biochemistry behind candy bars and your taste perception of them came by to say that Bar X is actually the "best-executed" one because the guy who created it also had this perfect knowledge and knew exactly what effect every molecule that went into it would have and made it to taste good to the largest number of people. To me, at least, that would seem immaterial - what does how precisely the guy involved crafted his product to be appealing by some specific standard have to do with the discussion? If we aren't discussing my standards, then it makes no difference whether the standard being crafted to is society's, or a seasoned expert's in whatever craft it is, or a literal retarded nigger's, it's still a completely different topic.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.