Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf
That's an often-heard criticism against "critics" — the implication being that they are too elitist for their own good. It's true, after all, that many professional critics do come across as snobbish people who apparently take delight in pouring acid on what the mass public considers entertaining.
I'm not sure if that's a fair perception. Like you've said, how well you enjoy an anime show depends partly on what experience and knowledge you bring to the programme. And a professional critic usually draws upon a broad range of skills that, by definition, a layman would not possess
|
Hm, fair enough. I guess my beef is mostly with literary critics--being a fan of genres/modes that they frequently snub just on principle (i.e. any science fiction that isn't a dystopia or politically relevant in some way). Plus the guy who wrote the AP Lit book we used cannot help but come off as a pompous jerk, so I've been a little angry towards "critics" in general from that class. I guess I just really love that element of reading/experiencing a medium that initially attracts people to it, say, when you're a kid, reading some fantastic adventure story or whatnot. A lot of those aren't necessarily dripping with literary merit, but they're very enjoyable, and whenever I read professional criticism, I can't help but wonder, "Do these people enjoy
stories anymore, or just the ideas they're trying to represent?" Because a book (or an anime?) needs to be entertainment as much as a venue for ideas--if all you want to do is argue your point, then you may as well write an essay, no?
But that's a little bit neither here nor there, sorry to digress.
Quote:
|
Which brings me to an off-tangent question: To what extent is anime an art form?
|
Well now, this could be interesting, or a complete can of worms, or go completely ignored by everyone else in this conversation. XD I guess we'll find out.
I suppose I'm inclined to want to view everything as "art" to a certain extent, because as a writer, I have a hard time imagining a person who writes without putting any of themselves into it, trying to hit upon something unique or at least interesting. I have to admit, there are a lot of things out there that make me question my faith in that idea, though, and I can't nearly blame all of them on some sort of executive meddling with the original ARTISTIC PURPOSE of the show.
But by the same token, I don't think "pure entertainment," is at all a bad thing, as long as that's what a series/show/book sets out to be, and doesn't pretend to be anything else. Take an American show like Psych--it's not as emotionally involved as a Law and Order or whatever, but it's generally funny, and it recalls that era of mystery stories that are as much about the adventure as figuring out who did it. And for the most part it knows that it's just trying to be a funny, entertaining show and doesn't pretend to be anything else. To a certain extent, I think that that's better than something that pretends to be deep or meaningful without much actually there... like, for instance, a lot of anime "philosophical clashes," between a person with fairly ordinary values and some villain who's spent his whole life reading Nietzsche or somesuch.
So I guess what I mean is that I look to any show to know what it is trying to be, and to be that to the fullest extent it possibly can.
But that doesn't really answer the question. I think I see anime as being entertainment, yes, but also being capable of being more than that when it wants to be. And as I've said, I have no problem with either, as long as they're well executed. I mean, hell, if I can read symbolism into Gurren Lagann, I can probably satisfy myself on either count with most well-made shows (though to be fair, Gurren Lagann does actually express its ideas pretty well, which may be why it won script awards in Japan, if memory serves).
Ack, I feel like I more just ranted about my own views than addressed your question... sorry about that... eheh... *sweatdrop*