Sterile Animation and Art in Anime

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Saying that about what I wrote there is like calling someone a communist because they support a higher minimum wage.

Mandatory Daily Show reference

[Archon_Wing]

I'd rather be honest, than be pseudo-objective and claim authority. When reviewing something, the most important thing is your opinion, otherwise people might as well go look up ANN and Wikipedia summaries then.

And that's my final word on reviews. :S

Edit: In regards to this thread, there's been too much talk about subjectivity. It does not serve as an obstruction to discussion as long as that subjectivity as somewhat supported by some sane kind of reasoning. Just because someone expresses a subjective viewpoint does not invalidate their stance. One is basically saying "You COULD be wrong" Duh?

If one is gonna go down the path of extreme subjectivity where nothing can be discussed "because it's subjective" then there's no point in discussing anything. Might as well not bother. I mean, are folks that afraid to handle an opinion different from theirs?

If one is so convinced that there is no "right" then why bother repeatedly stating the obvious. "Well, it may not be like that?" No shit! Who the fuck cares?

Perhaps the viewpoint of one means not much, but the viewpoint of many starts to mean something?

[felix]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

I'd rather be honest, than be pseudo-objective and claim authority. When reviewing something, the most important thing is your opinion, otherwise people might as well go look up ANN and Wikipedia summaries then.

When reviewing something what's important is talking about the part of the subject matter that other people would give a damn hearing. And, presenting it in such a way that there is no confusion from which angle you're addressing it. Otherwise, well, you're better off writing a diary.

And when it comes to objectivity and subjectivity, it's all about reasoning; hence why mindless number crunching never worked or will ever work. An objective opinion is at best simply the subjectivity of a "trusted" third party, rather then yourself, but is often better because it doesn't contain personal bias (I emphasize "often", not always), such as (to give a simple example) "I didn't understand it [...] therefore it must be bad." or (the modern version) "It's new and shiny and different, [...] therefore it's an improvement and better and `more fun` then the usual" which often plague most review kiddies these days. But really, any sentence that starts with "I [something]" is a staple of personal bias, meaning something you want to make out to be, or the projection of the thoughts and expectations on the matter you're supposedly reviewing. The problem? You could have asked them before they even touched the subject and you'd have gotten the same "opinion" as you did after the fact.

As for the philosophical discussion of right and wrong. There is no "both at the same time" or silly illogical conclusion like that, it's just right or wrong for different people in different contexts; however in the case of reviews or any sort of meta-discussion context is the last thing to be taken seriously into consideration, both when contesting or presenting an idea. It's always all about "universal" truths or "facts", sadly. Nobody really presents their "humble opinion" anymore.


But anyway... can you or Akito explain what the hell does this great wall of text stretching from god knows when to last page has to do with "Animation and Art in Anime"? I kind of got lost at what exactly you're even arguing over right after C.A.'s post with all the back and forth sieging with anime series.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by felix

When reviewing something what's important is talking about the part of the subject matter that other people would give a damn hearing. And, presenting it in such a way that there is no confusion from which angle you're addressing it. Otherwise, well, you're better off writing a diary.

I agree.

And when it comes to objectivity and subjectivity, it's all about reasoning; hence why mindless number crunching never worked or will ever work. An objective opinion is at best simply the subjectivity of a "trusted" third party, rather then yourself, but is often better because it doesn't contain personal bias (I emphasize "often", not always), such as (to give a simple example) "I didn't understand it [...] therefore it must be bad." or (the modern version) "It's new and shiny and different, [...] therefore it's an improvement and better and `more fun` then the usual" which often plague most review kiddies these days. But really, any sentence that starts with "I [something]" is a staple of personal bias, meaning something you want to make out to be, or the projection of the thoughts and expectations on the matter you're supposedly reviewing. The problem? You could have asked them before they even touched the subject and you'd have gotten the same "opinion" as you did after the fact.

That's true too. But my point is that every viewpoint is tainted by some kind of bias. It doesn't make it inherently worthless.

It is exactly the viewpoints that one brings to the table that makes their thoughts distinct and unique. Having some kind of sane reasoning goes without saying of course. The thoughts will only be as good as the person as it comes from. If you won't put any effort into what you say, it's not much of an honest reflection is it?

As for the philosophical discussion of right and wrong. There is no "both at the same time" or silly illogical conclusion like that, it's just right or wrong for different people in different contexts; however in the case of reviews or any sort of meta-discussion context is the last thing to be taken seriously into consideration, both when contesting or presenting an idea. It's always all about "universal" truths or "facts", sadly. Nobody really presents their "humble opinion" anymore.

That's just failure for the lazy.

But anyway... can you or Akito explain what the hell does this great wall of text stretching from god knows when to last page has to do with "Animation and Art in Anime"? I kind of got lost at what exactly you're even arguing over right after C.A.'s post with all the back and forth sieging with anime series.

People were basically saying art is subjective, therefore making the entire discussion pointless; which is kinda silly... you can discuss anything, and it's not like anyone is trying to shove truth down anyways throats. Honestly, we were hardly arguing then rather making a point, but I digress; this is truly a tangent anyways. Which is why I never really wrote too much to begin with.

[felix]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

People were basically saying art is subjective, therefore making the entire discussion pointless; which is kinda silly... you can discuss anything, and it's not like anyone is trying to shove truth down anyways throats. Honestly, we were hardly arguing then rather making a point, but I digress; this is truly a tangent anyways. Which is why I never really wrote too much to begin with.

Well the attention span of the casual observer is finite. How each individual fills that attention span with what's before them is "subjective" in a manner of speaking, then again people can be made to understand, or will come in time to understand, so the point is really mute. The only subjective part of the whole thing is if once you (completely) understand if you have the will to align to those values.

Say you have a statue, and you look at it and you see nothing, of course you'll (rightfully) think it's junk. But then if I tell you you're actually looking at it from the wrong angle, or you're suppose to look at the shadow, or you're given an explanation on how there's some kind interesting alignment going on, suddenly it's fantastic. In a way it's not so much subjective as it is "knowing what to look at" or "how to look at it". I mean take anime with a lot of references in them, if you don't know the reference you don't get it, but your lack of knowledge there doesn't necesarly constitute a subjective opinion... "I don't understand [...] therefore it's bad." is just prejudice.

Of course things that were made with no effort and look like junk, probably are just that, junk. As I sorta of pointed this out already in the other post just being different or new, doesn't necessarily make it better, it doesn't necessarily fill our interest. Maybe after a few decades (as is the case for some things) when people will start thinking completely differently and value different things, it might, that doesn't change the fact it doesn't in the present, and potentially never will for those of now who are living in it. Take the statue example above, if there are hundreds if not millions of the things around, it's suddenly not nearly as impressive as when there was just the one.

Anything explained with out giving reasoning is of course purely a subjective opinion, regardless of you being right or wrong about it. And the problem with that is while some people might be able to discern your reasoning from such an opinion, it's always quite the stretch of the imagination to do so. And, often is just laziness from people doing it. When giving subjective opinions it's best to do it at a moment and in a way that doesn't imply other people's opinions should be influenced by it. The whole argument of "this is the only way to explain it" is somewhat illogical as well. If you, who supposedly "understand it", can't explain it even partially, then how is the other person suppose to stand a chance? I suppose to some extent it works by bypassing thinking altogether, particularly when you do have the reasoning, you're just not saying it; in the interest of space, as in you work as a "trusted authority", and it's not that you don't have reasoning, you just avoid saying it over and over, because you've either given it plenty of times before or can't in the interest of time and space (think of something like a video review that has to fit into a certain timeframe).

tl;dr complex things can't just be "subjectively" analyzed from the get-go; and subjective opinions are only really usable when there are a whole lot of them together

[Afterstep]

I'm more of a fan of 90s stuff (and some 80s) stuff myself, but I think backdrops and background visuals are one of the things anime has improved on. Provided enough effort is put into it in the first place. My only real concern is that it's interesting to look at, and I think modern CG techniques can better leverage one of my favorite visual devices: color usage. Some titles these days are really good at over and under saturation that I feel adds a lot to a scene. I've always been a fan of vibrant colors though, even in normal cinema.

Not exactly animation or backgrounds, my main gripe with modern anime is the lack in creativity with shadows and reflections. Some titles in the 80s/90s had really imaginative movement and uses for shadows, which weren't the most realistic but were certainly more artistic. Computers are unfortunately a natural application for both and those elements are pretty mundane in today's titles.

[felix]

Originally Posted by Afterstep

I'm more of a fan of 90s stuff (and some 80s) stuff myself, but I think backdrops and background visuals are one of the things anime has improved on. Provided enough effort is put into it in the first place. My only real concern is that it's interesting to look at, and I think modern CG techniques can better leverage one of my favorite visual devices: color usage. Some titles these days are really good at over and under saturation that I feel adds a lot to a scene. I've always been a fan of vibrant colors though, even in normal cinema.

It's more in the lighting and contrast within the pallet they use. That's what makes colors "vibrant".

Originally Posted by Afterstep

Not exactly animation or backgrounds, my main gripe with modern anime is the lack in creativity with shadows and reflections. Some titles in the 80s/90s had really imaginative movement and uses for shadows, which weren't the most realistic but were certainly more artistic. Computers are unfortunately a natural application for both and those elements are pretty mundane in today's titles.

Well anime is suppose to be kind of cheap and mass produced. I don't know about CG helping too much. It's free when you have a model since you can just place some invisible walls aligned to the background, dunno if it's particularly easy otherwise for animated content. Let's face it anime CG models are kind of fail, mechs excluded. Ironically IMO it's because they're trying too damn hard.

I suppose there's the effect where they just take the character blacken it then vanish point it into the background they can do now they couldn't really have done as easily years ago. But that's so damn cheap, and there's so many things wrong with it, I'd rather not see shadows then have that.

---

Hm, let's see what would be good...

• more shots that get the horizon (earth and sky) in the distance; basically show what the place they're at actually look like. I hate how "contrived" the worlds in modern anime are. They barely move out of their classroom and kitchens for god sake.
• bring back the good old teraforming action
• more light and light rays
• better sky (don't they have clouds in japan?)
• more attention to the color pallet (pretty much what Afterstep wants)
• more of the good old expression fanservice (at least the little "mad" symbol is still alive). The modern "realistic" versions aren't nearly as funny.
• better indoor lighting
• environment shadows on the character are always nice

[Branduil]

Originally Posted by felix

Let's face it anime CG models are kind of fail, mechs excluded.

The mechs are usually pretty fail too.