No. Anime wishes it could be what Avatar is.RJ Dalton said:Once again, the damn video won't load. No Right Answer is the only video on the Escapist that won't load for me. What are you doing different with this video, Escapist? And would you please stop doing it?
Edit: Also, Avatar is not an anime; it only wishes it was.
Anime is a medium. Though there are stylistic consistencies amongst many anime, there is no universal style that can be ascribed. Anime can be and often is as wide and as varied in its aesthetics as any comparative animation of another country.minuialear said:DarkRyter said:Also, Avatar ain't Japanese. Not anime. Not like it matters, though.restoshammyman said:"anime is dumb". sorry to break it to ya. avatar is not anime. it was made by NickelodeonEabus said:1. Anime is from Japan, avatar is not from Japan so it is anime-ishhttp://www.answers.com/topic/animeGoWithDAFro said:1. Avatar is not anime. seriously.
Anime is a style. Thus the country a show was made in makes no difference in whether it can be considered anime or not; what matters is whether the style of the show is consistent with the anime style (which Avatar is fairly consistent with).
You're misusing the word "medium"; maybe you meant genre? If anime were a medium that would mean it'd be completely separate from animation as a medium, which is false.DarkRyter said:Anime is a medium. Though there are stylistic consistencies amongst many anime, there is no universal style that can be ascribed. Anime can be and often is as wide and as varied in its aesthetics as any comparative animation of another country.
If anime is truly defined by the stylistic inclinations people think of when people think "anime", then such famed works like Redline, or Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt, or even anything by Studio Ghibli would no longer qualify. Or, at the very least, become debatable.
And that's the issue with a style based definition. It becomes subjective. Country of origin leaves no room for personal interpretation. It's a rock solid classification, that avoids going into the wishy-washy world of artistic interpretation.
Medium might not be the best descriptive word to describe what anime is, but it's a better descriptor than "genre". Genre carries more of a connotation that implies a similarity of content, and since any kind of narrative can be told in anime, there's no uniformity of content (no matter what some people would have you believe). So anime isn't a genre in the same way that black and white film isn't a genre. "Style" is probably the best word to use for anime, but in my experience, it's not specific enough to really satisfy what people are trying to say in most conversations. So yeah, I think "medium" is a good word to use.minuialear said:You're misusing the word "medium"; maybe you meant genre? If anime were a medium that would mean it'd be completely separate from animation as a medium, which is false.
Animation is a medium. Anime means Japanese animation. Thus, Anime is a medium.minuialear said:You're misusing the word "medium"; maybe you meant genre? If anime were a medium that would mean it'd be completely separate from animation as a medium, which is false.DarkRyter said:Anime is a medium. Though there are stylistic consistencies amongst many anime, there is no universal style that can be ascribed. Anime can be and often is as wide and as varied in its aesthetics as any comparative animation of another country.
If anime is truly defined by the stylistic inclinations people think of when people think "anime", then such famed works like Redline, or Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt, or even anything by Studio Ghibli would no longer qualify. Or, at the very least, become debatable.
And that's the issue with a style based definition. It becomes subjective. Country of origin leaves no room for personal interpretation. It's a rock solid classification, that avoids going into the wishy-washy world of artistic interpretation.
There is a universal style, as there are several characteristics, taken in combination or separately, which distinguish anime from other forms of animation, including but not limited to characteristics such as how hair is stylized, facial/body proportions, and how motion is animated, etc.
Sure, the style has evolved to incorporate more variety, but you will always find some combination of the various core characteristics, to the point where the work will be distinguishable from, say, Batman TAS.
And so what if it's subjective? ART (which all animation is) is subjective. Art is also complex, and just because you classify something as being of one style doesn't mean it can't also borrow from various other styles in order to maintain its own voice, nor does it mean it must be exactly like every other body of work of that style. Go read an art book and hopefully you'll see what I mean.
Anime means "cartoon/animation"; only people who don't know Japanese attach the Japanese qualifier onto it. So in actuality, the only thing that actually separates anime from Spongebob/etc is the fact that anime shares a common style that is absent in most if not all non-anime animation.DarkRyter said:Animation is a medium. Anime means Japanese animation. Thus, Anime is a medium.
I haven't watched either show, but from a two-second trip to Google Images I can tell that both convey emotion using similar techniques common to anime, and I wouldn't be shocked if there were other characteristics they both shared (though obviously, having never watched either, I'm not going to waste time arguing it).You can't look at CLANNAD and Shin-Chan and say there is universal style to anime. You wouldn't be able to say there are amongst Ed, Edd, and Eddy and My Little Pony, would you?
It would be considered a painting of the Renaissance style. What else would it be classified as?There's more to art then just how it looks. At least, when it comes to classification. Say you painted something. And it happened to be heavily inspired by Renaissance art. In fact, it looks as if Leonardo himself just hopped up from his grave and tag-teamed with Michelangelo to make the most "Renaissance-y" painting in the entirety of human creation. But this ain't 15th century Italy. And it is not a renaissance painting.
In your opinion. That's not how it's actually defined, in an official or logical sense.Yeah, you could say there's alot of anime inspiration in Avatar (though, honestly, it still looks wildly different from most anime I've seen. Yeah, there's more FLCL in there than there is The Simpsons, but it's still especially distinct). But that doesn't make it anime. That doesn't make Teen Titans anime. That doesn't make The Boondocks(this one's kinda funky) or Kappa Mikey anime.
Anime is Japanese. That's what comes to mind before all else. It's what defines the term.
The word anime, in Japanese, means "animation". No specification beyond that, referring to any style or technique. Merely, "animation". It makes the most logical sense that the English loanword, refer to "Japanese animation".minuialear said:Anime means "cartoon/animation"; only people who don't know Japanese attach the Japanese qualifier onto it. So in actuality, the only thing that actually separates anime from Spongebob/etc is the fact that anime shares a common style that is absent in most if not all non-anime animation.
No one technique, no one style is universal in anime. Animators on either side of the pacific are never so idiotically rigid. You'll find the tricks and techniques that are used in alot of anime, but they can easily be used (and often are) in western animation, so there's no real point in associating said techniques with anime in the first place.I haven't watched either show, but from a two-second trip to Google Images I can tell that both convey emotion using similar techniques common to anime, and I wouldn't be shocked if there were other characteristics they both shared (though obviously, having never watched either, I'm not going to waste time arguing it).
Yeah, you could say it looks like a Renaissance painting. You could say Avatar looks like an anime(which I still affirm, it does not). But that doesn't make it a Renaissance painting. The word Renaissance specifically references a period of history for a specific geographic area. Just as "Anime"(The English loanword for Japanese animation)specifically outlines a national origin.It would be considered a painting of the Renaissance style. What else would it be classified as?
All lexicography is opinion. What I'm trying to argue is that "Japanese animation" is a superior working definition for anime, rather than vaguely defining it as a supposed "style" that it doesn't even have.In your opinion. That's not how it's actually defined, in an official or logical sense.
According to a documentary on Anime done by the STARZ TV channel anime DOES need to be from Japan to qualify as anime..... In this they interviewed key figures in the industry and chronicled its start in WW2 to today.minuialear said:Anime means "cartoon/animation"; only people who don't know Japanese attach the Japanese qualifier onto it. So in actuality, the only thing that actually separates anime from Spongebob/etc is the fact that anime shares a common style that is absent in most if not all non-anime animation.DarkRyter said:Animation is a medium. Anime means Japanese animation. Thus, Anime is a medium.
I haven't watched either show, but from a two-second trip to Google Images I can tell that both convey emotion using similar techniques common to anime, and I wouldn't be shocked if there were other characteristics they both shared (though obviously, having never watched either, I'm not going to waste time arguing it).You can't look at CLANNAD and Shin-Chan and say there is universal style to anime. You wouldn't be able to say there are amongst Ed, Edd, and Eddy and My Little Pony, would you?
I wouldn't say Ed, Edd, and Eddy and My Little Pony share the same style, because I never claimed those two shows are of the same style....?
It would be considered a painting of the Renaissance style. What else would it be classified as?There's more to art then just how it looks. At least, when it comes to classification. Say you painted something. And it happened to be heavily inspired by Renaissance art. In fact, it looks as if Leonardo himself just hopped up from his grave and tag-teamed with Michelangelo to make the most "Renaissance-y" painting in the entirety of human creation. But this ain't 15th century Italy. And it is not a renaissance painting.
In your opinion. That's not how it's actually defined, in an official or logical sense.Yeah, you could say there's alot of anime inspiration in Avatar (though, honestly, it still looks wildly different from most anime I've seen. Yeah, there's more FLCL in there than there is The Simpsons, but it's still especially distinct). But that doesn't make it anime. That doesn't make Teen Titans anime. That doesn't make The Boondocks(this one's kinda funky) or Kappa Mikey anime.
Anime is Japanese. That's what comes to mind before all else. It's what defines the term.
Considering we don't universally categorize cartoons depending on the countries they come from, your logic seems to be inconsistent and again is ignoring the impact of style on the distinction. When the word was first borrowed, it was because anime used a style so distinct from Western animation that the entire body of work coming from Japan (which at the time was mostly consistent with this style) was noted as being separate from that in the West.DarkRyter said:The word anime, in Japanese, means "animation". No specification beyond that, referring to any style or technique. Merely, "animation". It makes the most logical sense that the English loanword, refer to "Japanese animation".
There is, because those "tricks and techniques" are used in with more consistency in the anime style than they are in western animation. THAT IS WHAT STYLE IS. Being of the same style doesn't mean everything of that style needs to look exactly the same, nor does it mean everything of one style needs to be completely different from works of another style. In order to be of a certain style, a body of work simply needs to, at its core, utilize techniques and characteristics common to other works of the style.No one technique, no one style is universal in anime. Animators on either side of the pacific are never so idiotically rigid. You'll find the tricks and techniques that are used in alot of anime, but they can easily be used (and often are) in western animation, so there's no real point in associating said techniques with anime in the first place.
Actually Renaissance can also refer to a style of art that originated from the time--not simply the time period itself. So it could be accurate to say it's a Renaissance painting, so long as you're referring to the style and not to the actual time period.Yeah, you could say it looks like a Renaissance painting. You could say Avatar looks like an anime(which I still affirm, it does not). But that doesn't make it a Renaissance painting. The word Renaissance specifically references a period of history for a specific geographic area. Just as "Anime"(The English loanword for Japanese animation)specifically outlines a national origin. different way.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Japanese_anime#TerminologyMorganL4 said:According to a documentary on Anime done by the STARZ TV channel anime DOES need to be from Japan to qualify as anime..... In this they interviewed key figures in the industry and chronicled its start in WW2 to today.