Does anyone else...?

[lijon]

I appreciate your response, lijon, but I'm afraid you missed my point.

I mean art history in the sense that art has developed and clawed and altered its way into the present. It used to be a job, not expression, that someone would decorate a Pharaoh's tomb or decorate a church or adorn a funerary urn, not because they wanted to express themselves, but to do a job. You wouldn't want your plumber to "express themselves" in your bathroom when they're supposed to clean the drain, would you?

THAT was what art was.

But we've come so far, and art is so blessed with these developments- and the fact that that we are even able to discuss about what is art and what is not AT ALL is proof that we have come so far!

And my point was (apologies in being murky in my execution) is that people don't like anime because we have come so far, only to have art that is so commonplace and so frequently copied inundate us.

Where are our Van Goghs? Where are our Duchamps?

They're paying loans and working dead-end jobs.

Haha that feeling I understand as well. Being Chinese and having our culture over-shadowed by Japanese.

They say Japanese were originally Chinese.

Some traitor betrayed an emperor saying, he'd find a medicine for immorality sailed away with 100 children and never came back. The place they ended up in was supposedly Japan. Then in Ming dynatsy, Japanese students came as "exchange students" and brought our culture back to Japan. It became their culture. And now, something so recent, kimono, shinto, even japanese archetecture is a focus of fascination, instead of their point of origin, China. Japan denies it of course, but we can find statues of the traitor, who is now being worshipped as the great founder, in Japan. Well that happened some thousand years ago, so non-azns prolly wouldn't know of such a history. But that's just it, a story, who really knows what happened some k years ago? The facts prove the assumptions. Kinda like quantum mechanics (but that's beyond the point).

Personally I believe it. So I understand where you're coming from as well.

Also this is a bit of irony, we are so bitter towards them, but we like their ways. D;

According to what you said tho... shouldn't it be non-anime artists who are feeling insecure and wish to shun us? x.x

[rises and converges]

...Well, you can read my posts again if you'd like. I have to sleep.

Parting words though:

Don't be afraid to try new things.

[ultra_maniac]

i love anime art there are different types of them and ways of making them and its interesting and fun if you want to practice and become a manga or anime creator visit www.animecubed/how to draw/.com

[ultra_maniac]

i love anime art there are different types of them and ways of making them and its interesting and fun if you want to practice and become a manga or anime creator visit www.animecubed.com/how to draw/

[The Grey Crane]

I'm neutral in this, I consider anime/manga as art. I'm not a purist, I respect tradition but I'm not bound by it.

Artistically speaking (since we're talking art right now), you really have to be critical. Thing is, "putting your heart and soul to your work" doesn't necessarily mean "you created a good art work." Praising somebody for being a hard worker ain't bad, but praising somebody's work because he worked hard on it? That's a different story... It might work on a different field, but certainly not in the arts.

On a worser note, little critical sense could spell disaster for an artist, or even an aspiring one. Remember, one should be critical towards one's self too to discern the true quality of his/her work.

Sure there's what we call "artistic preference", you might like a Monkey Punch better than a Delacroix, or otherwise. But that doesn't mean you can use the term as an excuse for being poorly critical.

And oh, I know there's a lot of people aspiring to be a mangaka or an anime creator(animator). Yeah, could be, it's the age of webcomics anyway and anybody could simply call his/her work "manga". One's work could be published too somewhere, if he/she's good and lucky enough.

On the animated side of things, yeah you could be on the production crew of some [Japanese] animation company (like Toei) who's open for outsourcing. But your work should be of professional caliber. And of course, you'll likely be doing production assistance. Don't expect to see your own creation being animated, you'll gonna be doing somebody else's.

Making it big in Japan? Well, as far as I know, that's a long shot. I suggest having a reality check first.

I'm not trying to crush dreams here, but how many teens with talents have dreamt of being rock stars? TONS. And TONS, have failed. And being a rock star is relatively easier than being a gaijin mangaka making it big in Japan. So, think again.

I respect anyone who dreams big but of course dreamers should think about the realistic side of things as well.

[Annie Hall]

And that bull about "I won't pay 5 bucks for that art", I'd just say you don't appreciate art enough to see its worth. Why don't you try it out yourself? see if it's really that "easy".

Awe, you're so adorable.
I wouldn't make unfounded accusations like that.
I used to draw Anime religiously, it was when I tried to switch over to realism (and surrealism) that I realized how EASY Anime was in comparison.

And I appreciate art SO much that I'm very picky about what I consider to be art :/ If I didn't appreciate it, I'd just be some ignorant person walking around saying "Oh if it's drawn on paper, it's ART!"

[lijon]

Awe, you're so adorable.
I wouldn't make unfounded accusations like that.
I used to draw Anime religiously, it was when I tried to switch over to realism (and surrealism) that I realized how EASY Anime was in comparison.

And I appreciate art SO much that I'm very picky about what I consider to be art :/ If I didn't appreciate it, I'd just be some ignorant person walking around saying "Oh if it's drawn on paper, it's ART!"

And again, state your definition of anime, your style in anime. Perhaps just give me convincing evidence of your "level" to allow you to make such statements. Drawing anime religiously does not mean you understand its variations. Hayao Miyazaki brings realism into his anime, through backgrounds and details in character construction. There is also a level of surrealism in his "nightmare" scenes. Perhaps you do not understand these elements take an effort to be incorperated into anime, into an individual style? In the end, I define such art, still, as anime. Same as more traditional methods, the techniques aren't unknown to anime artists and often used. And yet techniques in anime are rarely/ never used in realism. Perhaps more clearly... traditional realism. There is clearly a blur in boundaries of these categories. And yet you claim that realism should be harder? When you quite obviously, did not meet realism/surrealism at the same time as anime? Must it be considered inferior because it was an earlier choice in your stage of life, that you possibly never stretched to its full extent? After your reply I am quite sure you're someone who appreciates art as a (one sided) fellow artist, but you would deny me being one worthy of such a title as an equal(suit yourself)? However I can firmly say that we are at a different level in the arguement. I believe that when a person's skill level reaches a certain stage the arguement would transcend concepts such as "good and bad" art. Indeed being "picky" allows identification of more experienced/developed styles. In the end it does not contribute any evidence to level of difficulty of a style in its whole, rather a personal choice/taste. So in fact, your arguement is at best, brushing on the surface of what you see as art. As those who've studied art history, I'm sure they'd teach you somewhere that art is always in the process of evolution. To brush aside such a process as trivial or simple is simply the arrogance of the short-sighted. Though to be sure, I am not identifying anyone as such... as of yet.

On a side note here:
Your sarcasm aims to hurt, and such things are unpleasant and ugly. Please refrain from it. I believe you don't need to resort to such method to make a point.

[Sachiko_chu]

Isn't art about expressing yourself? If people who draw anime draw it to express themselves, it's art right? hmm, maybe i'm wrong. But everyone has their opinion, just sharing mine o3o

[The Grey Crane]

Forgive me for butting in in your exchange of points, but...

I used to draw Anime religiously, it was when I tried to switch over to realism (and surrealism) that I realized how EASY Anime was in comparison.

Well, that's what i would call artistic preference... but I wouldn't say that anime and manga styles are easy in comparison to other styles.

Just to share what I know, during my time in the university (as an art student) some of by classmates were anime/manga enthusiasts, yes I am too but we're talking about artistic preference here. One of them had a book about modern artists in Japan, and the works made by a lot of the people covered in that book exhibit striking elements of the anime/manga style. Those people fused familiar anime/manga elements with traditional Japanese painting styles (which are exquisitely detailed) and other whatnot. And by God, they were stunning.

What I'm saying is, given the right amount of creativity and talent, the style can be taken to a higher level which transcends the boundaries of people's stereotypically negative notions about it.

And yet techniques in anime are rarely/ never used in realism. Perhaps more clearly... traditional realism.

Pardon? Did i read your statements the right way? Techniques in anime are rarely/never used in realism? How's that?

Anime, heavily stylized as it may be, draws heavily from realistic elements. By saying that, then it should be the other way around too - that the techniques in anime can be seen in realism as well. I find it interesting how you're able to say that anime uses traditional techniques but (seemingly) fail to see that the techniques in anime are never seen in realism.

I won't jump to conclusions, perhaps you could clarify...

----

And Sachiko_chu, yes you are right, art is also about expressing yourself. But like i said earlier, you have to be critical towards art. You're not gonna be getting thumb-ups for your work just because you expressed yourself. You have to be GOOD in expressing yourself. Yes, poor expression will likely lead to poor execution.

[lijon]

Pardon? Did i read your statements the right way? Techniques in anime are rarely/never used in realism? How's that?

Anime, heavily stylized as it may be, draws heavily from realistic elements. By saying that, then it should be the other way around too - that the techniques in anime can be seen in realism as well. I find it interesting how you're able to say that anime uses traditional techniques but (seemingly) fail to see that the techniques in anime are never seen in realism.

I won't jump to conclusions, perhaps you could clarify...

I'm pretty sure you took it the wrong way =_="

The arguement that its a vise versa situation in itself is slightly unsound. Simplest quote, "your father is a man, not every man is your father".

I suppose in your point of view then, a piece that's semi-realism anime could be classified in both. How would you describe a mule? A donkey or a horse? Not both, not a mixture, but a hybrid right? I think that was your take on my statement. But as I have defined before, I see it as anime as long as the recognizable traits are present. Thus it is quite unimaginable for a traditional realism artist to suddenly give his (portait etc etc) enlarged eyes and such, easily recognizable anime traits, and not fling it into a total different category. Then again, a definition of realism is needed. Art that makes the subject as close to reality as possible, would be a good fit. So anime techniques in realism? perhaps not. Though I would be interested to see how this can work out.

As you probably noticed, the arguement can differ if we're working on different definitions, probably another point to consider when presenting one?

[The Grey Crane]

I'm pretty sure you took it the wrong way =_="

Maybe that's not the case, let's see...

The arguement that its a vise versa situation in itself is slightly unsound. Simplest quote, "your father is a man, not every man is your father".

Mmmmmkay... I mean, we could throw quotes and what nots given that the fact that they offer a touch of relevance, and is connected, to the discussion. Fancy as it may seem, I don't see the "your father is a man" quote as something of relevance. It's just too far off... because I think you missed the point.

I suppose in your point of view then, a piece that's semi-realism anime could be classified in both. How would you describe a mule? A donkey or a horse? Not both, not a mixture, but a hybrid right? I think that was your take on my statement.

But as I have defined before, I see it as anime as long as the recognizable traits are present. Thus it is quite unimaginable for a traditional realism artist to suddenly give his (portait etc etc) enlarged eyes and such, easily recognizable anime traits, and not fling it into a total different category. Then again, a definition of realism is needed. Art that makes the subject as close to reality as possible, would be a good fit. So anime techniques in realism? perhaps not. Though I would be interested to see how this can work out.

I am not talking about something like a "semi-realism" work. And I know how to classify...

Seeing that anime derives much of its elements and techniques, no matter how stylistic it may be, from realism, then you should see it in reverse too. Anime/manga has incorporated realistic gestures, the backgrounds, the bed of the main character, the school uniform of a generic grunt, and other similar stuff. Yes they might not look THAT realistic anymore but they were DERIVED from reality and realism itself. Without a touch of realism, no matter how little, anime and manga as you know it would've been totally different.

Old school techniques are used in anime. The techniques used in anime are used in old school because it is where those methods were derived in the first place. I think I know where you're getting at, that shiny-shimmery-big eyes, odd and vibrant hair, the cartoony environment, those techniques can never be seen in realism.

Am i right? Correct me if I'm wrong, and perhaps... clarify?

Anyway, the styles and art movements that came before anime/manga are what laid its foundations, methodology, and artistic approach. A lot of the techniques in anime and manga can be seen in its predecessors. Simply saying that techniques in anime are rarely/never used in those older styles, let alone realism? Hmmm... I see something wrong here.

See what the point is? I hope so.

As you probably noticed, the arguement can differ if we're working on different definitions, probably another point to consider when presenting one?

Yes, that's why I asked you to clarify. Probably another point to consider, right?

[lijon]

Maybe that's not the case, let's see...



Mmmmmkay... I mean, we could throw quotes and what nots given that the fact that they offer a touch of relevance, and is connected, to the discussion. Fancy as it may seem, I don't see the "your father is a man" quote as something of relevance. It's just too far off... because I think you missed the point.



I am not talking about something like a "semi-realism" work. And I know how to classify...

Seeing that anime derives much of its elements and techniques, no matter how stylistic it may be, from realism, then you should see it in reverse too. Anime/manga has incorporated realistic gestures, the backgrounds, the bed of the main character, the school uniform of a generic grunt, and other similar stuff. Yes they might not look THAT realistic anymore but they were DERIVED from reality and realism itself. Without a touch of realism, no matter how little, anime and manga as you know it would've been totally different.

Old school techniques are used in anime. The techniques used in anime are used in old school because it is where those methods were derived in the first place. I think I know where you're getting at, that shiny-shimmery-big eyes, odd and vibrant hair, the cartoony environment, those techniques can never be seen in realism.

Am i right? Correct me if I'm wrong, and perhaps... clarify?

Anyway, the styles and art movements that came before anime/manga are what laid its foundations, methodology, and artistic approach. A lot of the techniques in anime and manga can be seen in its predecessors. Simply saying that techniques in anime are rarely/never used in those older styles, let alone realism? Hmmm... I see something wrong here.

See what the point is? I hope so.



Yes, that's why I asked you to clarify. Probably another point to consider, right?

Yes I see your point now. I'd think we're viewing the subject in different perspectives. Take for example, the cabbage. It's a cultivar of the Wild Mustard. So you would be seeing it as part of the wild mustard, while I'm just seeing it as the cabbage. So basically you're seeing it as a sort of branch off etc etc

But no my point was the unique/obvious traits, not the fundamental ones D;
cabbage traits =_= I'm unable to put the idea in a better way... I'm only good with bio references.

EDIT: oh and the "father" quote was only aimed at the way you formed your arguement. I was actually laughing when I saw the resemblence. So it had nothing to do with the arguement itself.

[The Grey Crane]

It's not about the styles per se, but the techniques, as said by this statement:

Same as more traditional methods, the techniques aren't unknown to anime artists and often used. And yet techniques in anime are rarely/ never used in realism. Perhaps more clearly... traditional realism.

Anime is anime, realism is realism, surrealism is surrealism, tenebrism is tenebrism, fauvism is fauvism, yadda yadda yadda. All the art styles/movements has their own defining characteristics that sets them apart from the rest. You'll see stuff in anime which you'll never see in realism, or any other style, and of course vice-versa.

But as seen in your statement, (shall I repeat it again?) traditional methods aren't unknown to anime artists and often used. And yet techniques in anime are rarely/never used in realism. Sure, you'll never see anime identifiers in realism (not unless someone painted a realistic scene which contains anime objects in the background), those unique obvious traits. But then again, you'll never gonna see otherwise too, not unless in special cases like what I've previously mentioned. Everything else beside the identifiers? I say most of them are covered, done by both sides, used and seen in both styles. That's what I'm trying to point out.

As an add-on:

Yes, by deconstructing the style, anime is INDEED a branch-off just like the other "ism's", but anime is anime. Don't get the wrong notion that I see anime as part-realism, part-surreal, part-naive, and what not. If that's the case, then you shouldn't have seen me use the term "anime/manga style", same goes for the other styles.

[Kaisuke7]

look at it like this art is art no matter what it may be music painting linework visual performance, what makes it "fine" is how hard the artist works at it, it may not suit ur eye but if the artist truly work to make it there best it fine art art isn't about Judgment it's about the effort, with no effort there no way it can be fineart. So when u look at how much effort is put into drawing anime specifically, stuff ike shoujo-ai and the typical school life animes and manga, there isn't much effort in each piece or frame because it's telling a story and the art is toned down to get things done. But if your going to do a piece intended to be looked at for sometime, then I would say to go all out and put ur heart in soul into it, meaning lots of color, nice background, perfect lighting ect.