Is anime art?
animation is art
and Japan is doing more to push it than, well, all countries
This picture epitomizes the idea of youthful adolescent innocence. Consider their location and the fabric of their clothes. From this the audience may infer that the girls are at a sleep over, granting the characters an aura of carefree and innocent youthfulness through indirect characterization. The frilly cloth and rich, yet soft colors of the cloth further characterize the characters. It emphasizes their blossoming femininity, elaborating on the fragile and elusive transitory stage between girlhood and womanhood. Their high level of detail is paralleled by and symbolizes the vivid experiences of adolescence where a new world of experiences are generally granted to the adolescent. In addition, the positioning of the characters are important. They are gently and casually embracing each other, a demonstration of close friendship. By doing so the drawer/writer argues that a fuller adolescence can be gained by having close friends. Also pay close attention to the details of the girls' faces. One is frightened and confused while the other is happy and joyful. These expressions may be generalized to the adolescent female community. The drawer/writer may be suggesting that adolescent femininity is both a happy and joyful, yet confusing and often frightening experience. Through the visual medium, a full and rich depiction of one of man's most fragile demographics are obtained. It remarks at the variety and depth of the adolescent woman's human experience.
Obviously yes. How can it not be considered art?
Even if you think it's low brow, it's still low bro art.
At the end of the day, even bad art is important, as it provokes the discussion and dissection of our own tastes and prejudices.
Anyone who turns around and says "nah, my Chinese cartoons are too stupid and lewd to possibly art" or some inane statement to the same effect would be utterly lost in any modern art exhibit.
If you think the above and AREN'T lost when you walk into an exhibition, what the fuck are you doing? You should know better.
yeah pretty much
same way most mediums are art
Anime is art
Art is subjective
Is anime subjective?
If any of you go "but it's not high art" please give an actual definition on what "high art" is
as much as video games are art
Yeah, It is.
It's true that it's not high art, that doesn't make it not art. It's amazing art in a postmodern sense, but pure drivel in a modern (or other traditional) sense.
Is OP a faggot?
It's like softcore porn, so yes.
art is pictures of assholes that hipsterfags praise as gods work.
anime transcends art and you're insulting it by putting it on par with photos of harry assholes and clay statues or men cumming into their own mouths.
In a sense, yes.
The thing is that, like video games, animu are made with one major objetive: profit. Because of this, the developers generally want to pander to the big public's wishes instead of doing something deep that touches one's very soul.
In the end, animu is more of a media than an art. And it's hard to be art, because a studio will waste quite a lot of money while making an animu, so even if they don't want profit, the show still has to be fairly successful for it to at least cover the studio's expenses.
Art is a word that snobs and neckbeards use to justify their obsession with their indulgences. Instead of doing important things like sciences, agriculture, economics, or politics.
It really doesn't have actual real world value and doesn't really mean anything.
Art just means an expression of something and all entertainment mediums classify.
>at least no other medium cares about profit
Watching /a/ trying to discuss aesthetics is like having my balls dragged across gravel while they are pressed to the ground, moving forward at high speeds.
Thanks for nothing, OP
Anything can be considered art or something or other. It doesn't really matter
Jesus, it's like my art classes
Is shitposting art?
Anime is art
Doujinshi is vanguard
am i a vanguardist?
I didn't even imply that. I'm distinguishing "media" from "art" here, anon. Most media wouldn't be considered a "fine art" (though it would still be considered art in its broader concept), since they don't focus on being deep and meaningful and overall beautiful, but on pandering.
In 10 years, same goes to memes.
Then it still qualifies as a post modern art form; what about the prints of Warhol? He very specifically commented on the consumption of media and art in general.
Not to mention, for an artist to live they must commercialise either themselves or their work.
Commercial success =/= the "value" of a piece of art.
>Being this much of a pleb with a fundamental lack of appreciation for what is the most important facet of humanity itself.
Our society creates art, and art creates society, it's like the glue that sticks us to the "not animals" side of the creatures of earth Venn diagram.
/a/, no, 4CHAN doesn't even want to talk about whether this and that is art. That shit is something pretentious hipsters do.
4chan is only interested in what satisfies them and if it happens to conform with some random definition of art them there you go. Because art or "high art" doesn't even have a definition at this point.
It is when I do it.
Only satirically, though.
Yes, but its not necessarily good art.
Should art be good? does art need to be discussion?
"Beauty" is just a tool a capable artist can use. Just because something isn't beautiful doesn't mean it's not good art.
I mean, for example, if I had a beautiful painting that left you absolutely apathetic to it, or a blank black square on canvas that inspired a deep emotional response, which'd be better?
They're as good as one another, there isn't a winner
Most "art" are remembered not because it had some deep meaning to it but because it was there and it was the stuff that was entertaining to the people at the time.
Art is probably the most pleb part of human society rather than build inventions or infrastructure they'd rather go see a play or read a fantasy novel. And we are suppose to celebrate these people?
This isn't quite right. There are anime made for money, but anime is no more inherently like that than, say, books.
>Nothing but simulacra of simulacra
Art is art. Subjective judgements within that category will always vary by individual.
Some anime are high art some are not
saying that anime itself cannot be it because of the latter is like saying novels cannot be it because Twilight exists.
But you can say Madoka is more art than Mahou Sensou
That depends on how you define anime. If you mean anime as in animation that has influenced and been influenced by "otaku culture", which is what someone usually means when they say anime, then it's basically fundamentally not high art.
If you mean anime as just Japanese animation then sure but it's pointless to say that.
You can, but the statement doesn't mean anything until you clarify what "more art" means.
Art isn't a matter of degree. In the broadest sense essentially anything deliberately altered by a human is art. Art is already a vague enough concept without trying to create gradients of it.
>That depends on how you define anime. If you mean anime as in animation that has influenced and been influenced by "otaku culture"
So apparently high art should not influence a culture
pretty much the opposite of this post >>101122373
>Our society creates art, and art creates society,
I'm really not sure how to deal with this statement, even if its just bait.
art is mostly self-justification, and not an actual value
people want to feel pride in watching/reading the things they do so they call it art
>So apparently high art should not influence a culture
I never said that. Or implied it, and if I suggested it then it's only because you read too much into things.
My art is better than your art.
At the same time that doesn't devalue their individual experience.
I know it's a wanky "muh subjectivity" argument, but still. It's true.
Suck my art, dude.
>In the broadest sense essentially anything deliberately altered by a human is art.
Not everyone would agree with you there, so you're not talking in the broadest sense, you're talking in the broadest sense as allowed by your personal philosophy.
You're art a shit
Things i like = art
Things i don't like = not art
That's how it goes.
That is a pretty impressive interpretation.
You said anime is influenced by and influenced "otaku culture" another phase that doesn't mean much since "otaku" pretty much means "guy obsessed with something" it cannot be "high art"
says it right here
>That depends on how you define anime. If you mean anime as in animation that has influenced and been influenced by "otaku culture", which is what someone usually means when they say anime, then it's basically fundamentally not high art.
That's kind of a semantic argument and doesn't address his actual point, and you know it.
I'd also agree with that basic concept. It's really the end result of the "what is art" argument. Everything's art and can be judged as art and be appreciated as art. I guess by the same stroke you can say /nothing/ is "art", but I'm kind of allergic to that idea even if I'm willing to discuss it.
I want to fuck an anime.
I don't want to fuck a painting.
Thus anime is better art than painting.
I would rather fuck a girl in an anime.
How is he wrong?
keep in mind you failed to provide an actual definition for "art" or "high art" throughout the thread.
>I would rather fuck a girl in an anime.
Where the fuck do you think we are?
I can fully accept things I personally dislike as art because I'm capable of examining my own tastes and prejudices. If I instantly dislike something I want to know why, not just dismiss it because I'm not a damn infant.
I'm saying I would rather fuck a girl in an anime than the anime itself.
The definition wouldn't add anything, because it'd just be picked apart on semantic grounds.
Not to mention an anon has already said:
>In the broadest sense essentially anything deliberately altered by a human is art. Art is already a vague enough concept without trying to create gradients of it.
>another phase that doesn't mean much since "otaku" pretty much means "guy obsessed with something"
Stop acting like a retard pretending to be smart. It's obvious what's meant by "otaku culture" in both America and Japan.
And stop abusing the spoiler function.
>You said [if] anime is influenced by and influenced "otaku culture" it cannot be "high art"
I did, no need to paraphrase me then quote me.
Inferring from what I said that I think high art should (can?) not influence a culture is not possible at all. You need to equate things that you can't equate to do so.
"Otaku (sub)culture" and similarly "anime" cannot be directly related to culture in general and art in general. Anime is a very intriguing thing from a postmodern perspective precisely because of how it's special, but I won't go into that because Azuma wrote it better than I ever could.
Actually he isn't. Design is art as well. And we do talk about ARTisanat. Your house is a work of art as well. The concept of "Art" is just something created by elitist faggots to create a superiority of experimental contemporary art made for the art market over popular art and design.
Sure there are works that are more creative than other because they experiments more, but there aren't more "art" than other artworks. It's just that society brainwashed us into saying that they are more artistic.
He suggested that things not deliberately altered by humans are not art.
This leaves out things that might otherwise be considered art, so it's not the broadest sense of the term.
Could you further expound on the whole anime/otaku culture being separated from wider popular culture/art in general? I'm interested in how you, or Azuma would explain how it became ghettoised.
Of, alternatively could you provide some original link?
Well, what would you consider to be left out in that Ann's "broadest concept"
>Could you further expound on the whole anime/otaku culture being separated from wider popular culture/art in general?
Since they're obviously different things, I think you're the one who'd need to show they're alike.
The set of anime is not equal to the set of all art. The set of otaku culture is not equal to the set of all culture.
You can't say that since something is true for otaku culture or anime then it is true for culture in general or anime in general.
There are specific cultures that lend themselves well to being used to describe all culture I'm sure, but if you want to argue that otaku culture is "normal" in the sense of being similar in such a fashion to everyone else then our argument is over since that would be flat-out retarded.
That doesn't mean it's fucking ghettoised.
Read Hiroki Azuma - Otaku. Or don't, but that's what you asked for, anyway.
>things not deliberately altered by humans
Do you really need me to pick out specific examples? You can't think of one yourself?
How about a thing accidentally altered by a human who looks at it and decides it's pretty and thus art (in his view)?
How about people who would look at beautiful scenery (that is, essentially untouched nature) declaring it to be art? If you haven't seen that happen, I'll assure you I have.
>declaring it to be art
Metaphorical statement is metaphorical.
Oh, was your point that anime as a general form of art can't be compared to, and easily categorised within, the tidy preconceived notions of what society and media is?
My argument was to the effect of "how can anime and otaku culture be considered separate to wider culture when it's within set culture?"
Vague wording on both our parts I guess; I actually will look up that book anon.
Art is just a useless word people throw around to feel smart.
Every time we have threads like these I more convinced this is the case. Even outside 4chan there seems to be more proof that my assumption was right.
I can of course, but I was interested n your interpretation for the sake of the discussion.
I guess you could split hairs on the consequences of deliberate actions being deliberate results, so that the art created, whilst not preconceived, is still a deliberate action; a city scape or example.
I'd agree you could make his statement the literal broadest possible by declaring anything touched by humanity is art, but whether or not nature in and of itself is art is a different, meta, issue.
That's probably more an issue of your cynical world view than an actual social trend.
There are no useless words, only useless speakers.
>Oh, was your point that anime as a general form of art can't be compared to, and easily categorised within, the tidy preconceived notions of what society and media is?
I don't really know what you mean exactly, I was just saying that, if anime is X, that doesn't mean all art is X.
>My argument was to the effect of "how can anime and otaku culture be considered separate to wider culture when it's within set culture?"
I'd disagree with some things you're implying here.
If you define "wider culture" to just be a culture encompassing all other culture (perhaps within a specific geographic location) then otaku culture is necessarily within that culture. But it's not as useful to talk about that definition of "wider culture" in the context of subcultures being discussed since there aren't many things that could be said about it that then apply to all subcultures within it.
I think it'd be more practical to define "wider culture" as common culture. This is initially vague, but I basically mean a set of subcultures where you can say nontrivial things about the set and have it apply to the subsets.
Notably, a widest culture would be poorly defined in somewhere with, for example, a couple distinct classes, and you'd need two widest cultures.
In this sense that I think is more useful for our discussion, otaku culture is not necessarily within widest culture (that is, what may be referred to as normal Japan culture, or more commonly just as Japanese culture). This is because of how different it is; you may say that it's part of the wider culture, but it's not helpful to say so.
>I'd agree you could make his statement the literal broadest possible by declaring anything touched by humanity is art, but whether or not nature in and of itself is art is a different, meta, issue.
If it's an issue, then to obtain the "literal broadest possible" definition of art you'd need to include the broader set, that is, that nature itself can be art.
Notably, if you define just nature as being not art, you'll run into problems with a bunch of disgruntled materialists claiming that humans are no less just nature than animals or planets.
all entertainment mediums count as art "high" or otherwise
-People say it means human expression, which every medium does
-People say it's about works not for profit there all medium have those
-People say it's about not being mostly for profit work, which all medium have
-People use the classical definition, that it's just about whether the thing is well made, and there are well made works in all mediums
-People say that it has to have some historical value, little do they know historians remember and preserve works, not because of any "true artistic value" but as a marker for that time period, it could be anything
-People say it must have intellectual value and teach you something, but that depends on the intelligence of the viewer a person who is a expert on his field will probably not learn anything from a book about it no matter how good the writing
These definitions qualify/disqualify certain works as being or not being art, but never entire medium. No matter the definition of art, high art, true art, etc. anime is that.
For all intents and purposes I think you've stated your case a lot better than I have my own, I'm inclined to agree with you.
That's true; then would the very act of observing, understanding and appreciating anything make it art, due to the very nature of sentient beings?
Probably the closest we'll get to a definitive answer in this thread.
>That's true; then would the very act of observing, understanding and appreciating anything make it art, due to the very nature of sentient beings?
I think the definition of art is something that's different from person to person, or more broadly, from movement to movement. I don't think that means arguing about the meaning of art is pointless, though.
However, if you want to say that that is what is art, I think you'd have to address some points.
First, you'd need to properly define what a sentient being is.
Second, you'd need to better define what you mean by observing, understanding, and appreciating something. Saying that only things that have been observed, understood, and appreciated by sentient beings excludes some things others may call art.
For example, take some section of science we don't fully understand. If you're going to include things like rocks in your definition of art, then I don't think this is too far off.
Alternately, on an individual level, it could be the case that someone appreciates a painting but does not "understand" it. You might argue that by appreciating it he understands it, but this isn't a trivial argument.
Since it's such a vague term on a meta level, I'd say the broadest definition of art would just be everything that does or doesn't exist.
However, I'd say that the broadest practical definition of art would be everything observed (including imagined, etc.). Maybe I'd say it's something different if I thought about it longer, though.
literally everything that can be judged subjectively can ve considered art, hell i could throw a turd at a white wall and sign it at the bottom and someone will consider it art these days, arguing that "it was a nice smelling piece of shit"
so if some people can consider that art then anime can be considered art too.
Of course the argument isn't pointless, this discussion is worthwhile just on its own merits.
On the first point, I'll admit I was being disingenuously vague, the discussion of sentience would be an ethical discussion that's way too much of a digression to really get in to here, on top of that, it's not a topic I'm very well read in.
Secondly, this argument would have to discuss whether or not art is an entirely separate concept to humanity, as in if art can exist without being observed, or even having an observer existing.
Your definition totally accounts for that scenario however. I'm inclined to agree with your practical definition since its just simple logic; and its only through the broadest strokes that we can try and assess how people appreciate art since its all so damn subjective.
We could both say something completely different in a year, and the next generation could take this as for granted. Yay for humanity I guess. A really art literate society would be nice though.
Sasuga anon, you really are an example and a great inspiration to all of us!
>Of course the argument isn't pointless, this discussion is worthwhile just on its own merits.
I was just clarifying since my view can easily lead to that conclusion.
>the discussion of sentience would be an ethical discussion
I don't think that's really true, in context. If you have a definition of art in your head and you put it into words as you did then you just need to define "sentience" as being whatever will make what you said match what you think.
The rest I basically agree with, although my definition of broadest definition of art wasn't intended to be influenced by time.
I should also clarify that what I defined as the broadest meta definition of art (definition of meta art?), isn't really what my personal definition of it is. My personal definition doesn't really say that anything isn't art, but it has some more points that can't be drawn straight from my total or practical broadest meta definition of art.
I mean, I should probably redefine my broadest definition of art as being the union of all possible definitions of art. This meta definition could be someone's definition on its own, if they just say that nothing isn't art and don't elaborate further, but I find it too bland for what my actual thoughts on art are.
Haha all of your arguments have made sense, i feel we're basically in agreement but with some personal caveats.
If i wasn't so out of practice making coherent arguments, I probably wouldn't have had to acquiesce so much haha
For like all of the discussion except where I pointed off to someone else I was just making trivial points anyway, which is why that broadest definition of art I came up with is mostly useless.
The argument could go the same for at least basically anything, too. Like, the technically broadest possible definition for anything is the union of all possible definitions of it. It's a bit more useful with art due to how nondefined the term is in a practical sense.
no, its a lifestyle
once you go anime, you never go back
Before 1990 was an art but not anymore.
Kotonoha no Niwa was nice tough.