I don't understand it.
Which is to say, I don't think I know enough about it to really grasp its message. I mean, I've taken a few art classes and I've read a few things, so I know--at least--who Andy Warhol was, and who Roy Lichtenstein was, and so on. But I don't really know enough about them to understand why they made the art they did. Elevating the commonplace is cool, yeah, but how is that different from Bruegel's Fall of Icarus? It's basically the same message, as far as I can tell (the message being "don't pay attention to the fantastic and the abstract because people actually farm/drink soup.")
The only thing that's set the two apart, in my opinion, is something an Art professor once said to me (or maybe I read it on Wikipedia-- I can't really remember. Shows how much I liked that class): Andy Warhol, in creating mass prints of a subject with different colored backgrounds, was seeking to appeal to everyone's perception of the subject. The reasoning behind this was--to my understanding--to appeal to an audience member's particular tastes regarding a common symbol. Marilyn Monroe, for instance, would be placed on a black background or a green background, and the audience member was supposed to choose which they liked best based on the simple fact that it featured this symbol in the context they found most pleasing (insider tip: I could be making all of this up. Regardless...)
This is why I don't like Anime.
I recently watched this video:
http://io9.com/5700180/fan-video-proves-that-every-anime-show-has-the-same-opening-credits">http://io9.com/5700180/fan-video-proves-that-every-anime-show-has-the-same-opening-credits
What I see here is a whole bunch of different series. They've all got different characters, they deal with different plots and so on. The artistic style is different. But besides all of that, they're the same show.
They all strike on the same notes at the same times, evoking the same emotions they want the audience to feel (to name a few: thoughtfulness, hope, community, devotion to a cause and the intensity therein, and so on.)
Regardless of the individual plot points, they're all designed to be the same show.
(Here I have to say that I mean 'show' as in the etymological 'act of exhibiting to view.')
They all follow the accepted 'show' formula (Which is interesting in a distinctly cultural way, when considering the rigidity of Japanese Noh theater. BUT ANYWAY.) It is the symbol portrayed in a specific way to appeal to a particular audience. If you don't like Pokemon you might like Cowboy Bebop, but they've both got more in common than they do otherwise. It's the same as Elvis on a blue background or a red one: you might like Elvis the same in both, but there's going to be one you prefer over the other. It's more of an issue of 'what is your favorite ice-cream flavor' than 'what is your favorite dessert,' I guess. Or in this case, 'what is your favorite type of Rocky Road' as opposed to 'what is your favorite flavor of ice-cream' (my favorite flavor of anime is Gurren Lagann, if you were wondering.)
Anyway, I don't like the pop-artitude of anime because I get really, really sick of repetition.
Or, no. You know what? I honestly don't. I get sick of repetition when people pretend that it isn't repetition. Like taking Madlibs and passing it off as legitimate literature. "There is a young man/woman/person-of-indeterminate-gender who leaves his/her/its village to go seek the crystals/the creatures/the giant robots because it is their destiny/the only way to save the village/the only way to be the very best, like no-one ever was." Circle all that apply.
It isn't the fact that people repeat plots. People repeat plots all the time. It's when people don't move past covering up the fact that they've used someone else's material.
Here I should say that, before I insult everybody that likes anime, there are a few shows and artists that never cease to astound me in their creativity and ingenuity. Hayao Miyazaki, for instance, is one of the best storytellers of the 20th century (in my opinion.)
But in order to be good, the things that people make have to be their own. Even Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind was inspired by the Earth-Sea books by Ursula K. Le Guin, but Miyazaki was able to move past that and create a kick-ass movie (and book series-- I'm not sure which came first) that stands on its own.
This differs from typical anime because it is not just the same message wrapped in different skin. It is a distinct mixture of influenced style and message that combine into something that nobody has made before or since.
But of course, all of this makes me feel like there's a joke that I'm just not getting. Because I don't understand pop-art, am I not able to appreciate Anime?
No comments:
Post a Comment