Why So Serious?
My wife. This picture does not objectify women. This is a picture of a woman, and an extremely beautiful woman at that.
…and so wrong, for that matter?
I don’t read anime blogs. In fact, I don’t know much about the anime fanbase at all. There’s a trend that worries me: philosophizing about anime.
Alright, look, I understand that everyone on the Internet wants to hear your theory relating Hidamari Sketch to de Saussure’s theories on structural linguistics. That doesn’t make it okay to be completely wrong.
I know I sound just a bit angry, but I think there’s a point to be made here. I honestly believe that anime was made for entertainment, and shouldn’t be over-analyzed. When one attempts to find deeper meaning in, say, Haruhi, one can often find all sorts of interesting little symbols to analyze. I speak from experience, as I was also guilty of throwing huge words around in psuedophilosophical circle-jerks.
Anime should be viewed at face value. Waxing philosophical doesn’t serve much of a purpose, especially when taken to the extent that most blogs take it to. I’ve seen some very ridiculous claims here and there; claims that GAR is about “becoming” and not “finality” (would someone like to explain to me what GAR has to do with any of that?), claims that black people in anime perpetuate stereotypes about black people in real life… the list goes on and on. Ridiculous.
Coincidences happen. This I believe, and will always believe. I understand that an artist may have chosen a specific symbol to represent a character because of a specific personality quirk, but I don’t think there’s any deeper meaning beyond that.
SHAFT’s work is often the target of pseudophilosophers everywhere, just like Gainax was before it. I remember the long days I used to spend on anime forums reading the comments of Eva fanboys hypothesizing on everything ranging from Freudian psychoanalysis to structural linguistics to the Talmud; I don’t know why any of that applies or should apply to a mecha series that simply ran out of money towards the end of its production run. Same goes with SHAFT; many attempts have been made to consolidate their abstract visuals with some sort of philosophical symbolism. I tend to regard these attempts as invalid; I think it’s a simple matter of aesthetics. SHAFT likes to play around visually, and I think what we’re seeing is the result of one large visual experiment, carried through many different series. While Shinbo and Friends have made a conscious choice to pursue a more abstract form of expression, I don’t believe that there’s any deeper philosophical meaning in their choice. It simply looks pretty.
I also think that I wouldn’t mind people speculating about philosophy and anime as much if people were actually right. It pains me as an academic to see people simply throwing terms around and not bothering to check basic facts. I’ve seen people refer to Ferdinand de Saussure as a “French philosopher,” despite the fact that he was neither French nor a philosopher. This is rather regrettable, because any quick search on Wikipedia could have quickly corrected such an elementary mistake. Incorrect author citations and bastardization of philosophical ideas irk me, because it demonstrates a lack of understanding. More dangerously, this lack of understanding can spread, leading to a greater lack of understanding and further bastardization of ideas.
You know what I’d like to see? Thoughtful bloggers who throw away the philosophical pretense and simply muse about anime on their own, using their own terms. I think that’s infinitely more valid that throwing philosophical terms around. It shows to me that the author can think on his own, rather than borrow ideas from dead men all the time. Ultimately though, I’d rather not see any sort of deeper analysis going on. Keep it simple. Appreciate what the directors have given us, not speculate on what they’re trying to tell us. A good anime should require no speculation. It should be straightforward and enjoyable. Everything that viewers need in order to enjoy an anime is right in front of their eyes; there’s no need to look deeper for things that are ultimately not there.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On a completely unrelated note. Sorrow, you’re close, but no cigar. In fact, my favorite character from Akasaka is indeed Nagomi, with Mitsuki and Minato occupying a close second. Perhaps the anime completely mischaracterized Nagomi, but in the game, she’s a psychotic girl who frequently breaks the fourth wall. Don’t laugh about Minato. >_>
I don’t have much to say about translating this season, as I’m translating Minamike: Okaeri. Not too many notes to fill in there. Although I’ll admit, I had great fun doing the Hosaka curry song.
On a final note: I realize that my argument is not very well thought-out. This is because I am hoping to have a respectful, intelligent debate with people who oppose my views. Just leave me a comment.
I don’t completely agree with you. I can see what your saying with the specific examples you brought up (it is ridiculous what some people draw from anime sometimes and, in Shaft’s case, most of it is for aesthetics and little more), but I still think there’s value in dissecting and discussing anime and trying to look at it from a philosophical point of view (I’d make the argument that there’s been a growing trend in several media towards more overt philosophy in storytelling, anime included).
I guess it wouldn’t hurt at all if people got their basic definitions right and cited correctly. I don’t think it’s quite right to say that there’s no place for established, high-level philosophy in analyzing anime, but most of the time it’s probably unnecessary, since anime doesn’t tend to be deep. Kara no Kyoukai immediately comes to mind as an example where it’s relevant to talk about philosophy, IMO, (ironically enough, I’m in the middle of writing an article for this site, attempting to analyze the most recent film). The ending of Code Geass R2 was a bit as well, even if there was some highly questionable stuff leading up to that.
Evangelion, well, let’s face it, it was a bit of a wank. I think it was one of the reasons why I was a bit apprehensive about thinking about philosophy in anime for a number of years. In general, a lot of fans are inevitably going to see things that aren’t there. I don’t think that’s a bad thing in and of itself, it shows that people are at least thinking, even if their logic is a bit flawed (I’m sure I’ve been guilty of this). If people are wrong, then I think the best approach is debate and discourse rather than everyone getting tentative about looking for something that may or may not be there, because who knows, maybe there is something there that the creators put in that isn’t immediately obvious and is worth thinking and philosophizing about.
Why so angry?
There aren’t any shoulds about anime, it’s a medium. The consumption and enjoyment of which is left to the arbitrary volition of the consumer. I’ve theorized that there are two general ways to enjoy anime: the amassive/amassing behaviors, and the expressive ones.
Ammasive behaviors are consumption-based. Collection, completion, watching more of one thing, watching others like it. It’s all good and subject to the biases and personal standards of the consumer.
Expressive behaviors are related to the anime consumed, but is directed outward and perhaps socially. These behaviors include cosplaying, fanart, doujinshi, and yes blogging. You said you’re an academician, and it seems that you subscribe to Platonic truths, essences, and ideals. That is a respectable position but in my opinion severely limiting.
My own writing about anime is not reviewing shows but rather subject exploration. What possibilities of thought can be explored in Lucky Star, in Gundam 00? Such indulgent expressions are valid, and isn’t really a problem unless presented to everyone as the Truth, as if one interpretation could establish this.
Lighten up dude. Fans are can be as stupid as the characters they love, and it’s all good because it’s love for anime too.
My comment got eaten by your filter because I linked to a post of mine. Sorry.
Reference to royalcrown’s last superflat post with that screenshot?
“Same goes with SHAFT; many attempts have been made to consolidate their abstract visuals with some sort of philosophical symbolism. I tend to regard these attempts as invalid; I think it’s a simple matter of aesthetics. SHAFT likes to play around visually, and I think what we’re seeing is the result of one large visual experiment, carried through many different series. While Shinbo and Friends have made a conscious choice to pursue a more abstract form of expression, I don’t believe that there’s any deeper philosophical meaning in their choice. It simply looks pretty.”
- That’s funny. Ironically I used a certain philosopher’s ideas to show why ‘Shaft style’ was all about aesthetics and not symbolisms full of hidden and deep meanings. So there I agree with you. Like film, anime is a medium, I don’t see why the aeshetics and style of anime making does not deserve an analysis.
As for all the philosophical thing, I can’t speak for other bloggers here, but I personally aim to use concepts related to the way we perceive and feel from anime as just any other form of art. It’s an interesting enough topic for me, since I see how the way a film or architecture might impact us, and I see it simiarly working for anime as well. They’re not same, but they also have similarities, because they are in essence art (as in, they make us think, sense and feel…whether they have ‘deep meanings’ or not). I just don’t like taking credits for such wonderful concepts that still continue to shape and influence high-class artists and designers out there, which is why I am correctly citing (I believe) all the time.
“Ultimately though, I’d rather not see any sort of deeper analysis going on. Keep it simple.”
This is simply a matter of difference in the way we want to be entertained, so nothing to discuss here.
I think it’s fairly vague to imply that the entirety of the anime medium is void of symbolism or material suitable for philosophical analysis. Like any other medium, there are certainly works that are created with the sole intention to entertain, and there are those which demand a deeper understanding. Unfortunately, more often than not it is posthumous in the artistic community that a work of art is assessed for more than its intrinsic work. Yet like with all visual and literary forms, our evaluation of symbolic value is assessed disregarding the authors intent. Certainly we cannot ask of Steinbeck if his vast symbolism in works such as “Grapes of Wrath” was intentional, yet we accept it because it seems too unfeasible for it to be sheer coincidence. The predominant example that comes to mind for me would be something like Grave of the Fireflies. So whether or not it was intentional or not, I think the community’s appreciation and understanding of the work is most important. Of course, this is granting out superfluous examples (i.e. No, Inuyasha does NOT have symbolic value no matter how hard you stare) and the understanding that some works are created for the sole intention of entertainment.
…Well that’s my two cents on the subject ^^;
That’s sort of what I’ve tried to be about as a blogger, adopting my own style, my own opinions and my own theories. Plus in most of cases I’ve found that if an anime is trying to tell us something then usually it is fairly evident what it is and therefore there is little need for bringing in talk from the great philosophers like Nietzsche or Plato etc.
In the case of Evangelion specifically I’ve always felt that the religious terminology and implications were just there as a superficial attempt to seem more deep when really it was….just….there. Like any anime that came out after it though I think Evangelion just tried to throw as much pseudo-philosophical babble at the viewer as possible to generate debate and in an attempt to be remembered, and what do you know it worked. People still discuss both endings to this day even though nobody really knows what it’s all supposed to mean and I doubt Anno does either.
Evangelion set the standard though, and now this “just there” usage of religious, philisophical or biblical terminology has since been used in a lot of mecha anime (anime in general too, but specificall mecha anime) with weapons or concepts adopting religious names that sometimes sort of describe their purpose, but rarely go much deeper then that. Yet in the end they are still weapons or concepts to move the plot along. There’s no philosophical meaning to be drawn from them, although people are free to try I suppose.
That’s not to say that I think this type of talk should be barred entirely, just that I too feel that letting as you say “dead people” do the talking for oneself is kind of a cop out. Using philosophical methods, integrating them with one’s own take on something and then coming up with the resulting banter, again on one’s own, that’s what I personally wouldn’t mind seeing more of.
@Sorrow:
You’re absolutely right; in my last paragraph I have expressed that I believe there should be a forum for elevated discourse, just not one where people mis-cite and bastardize the opinions of dead men. I believe (as you do) that most anime are simply not deep enough. I absolutely reject your contention that Kara no Kyoukai has philosophical merit. Anything Naasu writes is a crapshoot in my mind. That man simply tries way too hard to be special. Ultimately, I think that I’d much rather see debate and discourse on one’s own terms.
@Ghostlightning:
It may be of extreme surprise to you (and perhaps not) that I’m most possibly the most hardcore otaku you will ever meet. I’m so far into the industry, I’m in it. So yes, I do believe in the fun of anime and I have plenty of fun being a fan, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t demand a basic bottom line for intelligence.
@gaguri
Not really a reference, but I needed to throw Yuyuko out there somewhere. She’s way too under appreciated. I do agree that anime can be used as an art form, but once someone begins to find deeper meaning in everything, I feel it cheapens the author’s original intent. Sometimes, I can imagine Shinbo sitting at his desk, reading comments on his works on 2ch, and tearing his hair going “THAT’S NOT THE FUCKING POINT!!” The conversation you explore takes us deeper into a discussion of the true nature of aesthetics, which, unfortunately, requires deeper knowledge on the subject which I do not possess.
@Godai
I don’t agree with your contention that “posthumous evaluations of art reveal more than intrinsic worth,” simply because there is no absolute bar for “worth.” If, for example, a piece of literature is valued as a piece of shit upon publication, but, after a span of 200-300 years, becomes one of the most significant works of literature in the world, what is its worth? Is it still a festering turd that everyone loves? Or is it a masterpiece? Is Moby-Dick actually good? No one knows. You touch upon this idea in the second half of your comment; you claim that community appreciation and understanding is the most important aspect of a work’s legacy and perhaps its true purpose. Yet one can never truly “understand” a work and attempts at understanding and interpretation may bastardize and soil a work of art. Wagnerian operas and the works of Nietzsche immediately come to mind.
@Kaoshin Sama
Kudos to you for not sounding like a book-worshipping elitist! I approve of your hands-on approach to blogging and I do feel that grassroots discourse such as yours moves the community into true meaningful discussion. Like I said earlier, I’m not saying we should ban all deep talk on anime and glare at 2D tits all day, but we must be prudent not to overanalyze things into the realm of ridiculousness.
There is not much I can say that has not been said more elegantly.
Having taught a class on Anime as Literature (a true fact, ask Akira) I must confess that I thoroughly enjoy diving into the [i]depths[/i] of some shows for the mere pleasure of Akira’s aforementioned circle jerk (everybody likes a good jerk now and then). I guess that makes me the type of person which might grate on your nerves (actually, I do often). However, I completely agree that [i]un[/i]intelligent debate and discourse (or, uninformed) is detrimental to the process of the circle jerk.
Those quoting Plato and Milton in discussion on Bible Black have missed the point, in my book. But those discussing the modernization’s and expansion’s effect on Shinto practices in Magical Shopping Arcade Abenobashi might be on to something (although, by rule, GAINAX is not allowed to conjure deep discussions due to their transgressions caused by Eva*).
Like I said, I am not really saying anything new besides agreeing with what Akira said to Kaoshin Sama but I had to confess that I ascribe to the notion that once a work is produced, its original intentions are null. After all, Kitty Media did its fair share of research when putting together BB (but that was a the game).
One more thing.
That OP can be used to objectify women. There is no man in that picture, ergo, she is the object of the picture. And I use “ergo” because I want to sound half as smart as the people who commented before me. This goes to speak to Akira’s point, two fold.
One: Due to the “intelligent” debate aroused by the OP, I used pompous language in order to make my point sound more intelligent. Therefore (English for “ergo”), I propagated the “intelligent” debate.
Two: Yuyuko is second to Sakuya.
I forgot my notes:
*For full disclosure, I am the kind of person who entertains late night debates about Evangelion at conventions. “Kurier, spawning targets for Akira’s hate since 2005. Board Certified.”
“Two: Yuyuko is second to Sakuya.”
This.
Everything I would have already said has been; I had the conversation with Akira that probably led to his post. I agree with him up to the point where he says that anime should be taken at face value – but that’s not always true. If you miss out on the big “secret” of Haibane Renmei, you’ve missed out on what makes the show so good (incidentally, this has actually happened).
That being said, as a philosophy major I find the nonsense going on not just with anime, but with literary criticism and the humanities at general, to be really bothersome. Epistemology is a very specific term used to describe specific philosophical issues, and it’s been HEAVILY abused, as most in the department and academia will let you know. I echo Akira in this sense because his thoughts on this issue are especially important – terminology used to describe one issue cannot be used to analyze an anime. This goes for linguistics, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, etc – the list goes on. The terminology and subject matter in those fields were designed to apply to those fields, not to a movie or anime or book, and to do so is an injustice not only to the people who created and developed those terms and theories, but to the fields themselves.
Think about it this way: would you call Evangelion a series with overtones of quantum chromodynamics? Of course not, because that’s arbitrary and makes no sense – and yet this is exactly what’s being done, and that’s exactly how people actually situated in the academic field feel.
Critical discourse on any topic is fine – misapplying theories is anything but fine, and besides, more often than not the people are just using those terms to look more intelligent and hide the fact that when you strip all of the terminology away you’re left with basically nothing.
More opinions on the comments made so far, because I don’t want to make a separate blog post for something like this:
- Like royalcrown says, it is impossible to take Haibane Renmei at face value. Perhaps it is because, this is just from my observation, Akira tends to watch the type of anime that focuses more on entertainment (not that there’s anything wrong with that) that doesn’t compel you to more thinking.
- @Akira: Higher understanding is not necessary, I’d like to believe that I provide basic, brief and necessary details, which don’t cover everything about certain ideas, but enough to understand what I really want to talk about. Which, surprise, is all about anime. You’re an intelligent person so I think, like other people who has commented on my writings, you’re more than capable of digesting the little there is to know about, then relate it back to the anime in question. I hate reading philosophy but sometimes they have wisdom that can (at least it did for me) enhance one’s appreciation for the medium. That is why I wish to avoid the danger royalcrown mentioned; “more often than not the people are just using those terms to look more intelligent and hide the fact that when you strip all of the terminology away you’re left with basically nothing.”
- I didn’t think Evangelion was pretentious. Just because there were millions of people overanalysing stuffs that weren’t there (which I agree), doesn’t mean they were useless. I don’t think Evangelion deserves psychology essays, but I think stuffs like Hedgehog’s dilema and AT-fields are beautiful metaphors for the kind of struggle that these characters are facing. And characters are the essence of the Evangelion, not those references (which honestly wasn’t THAT much of). Just because some fans talk about good vs evil, politics, etc. in Code Geass at ridiculous level, doesn’t mean I think it was being pretentious. Separating the fandom from the anime in question is the key.
- I agree with Kurier on this: once a work is produced, its original intentions are null. Couldn’t agree more.
- Philosophical terminologies can be used to analyse anime, just as it can apply to literature, paintings, films, politics and economics. Philosophy needs a nonphilosophy that comprehends it.
Totally off-topic, but I’ve tried everything and can’t find it. Flag, just rated a 9 out of 10 by your site, looks really awesome. I’ve tried at least a dozen different searches on various sites, to no avail.
It’d make my day if someone can reply to this comment or e-mail me and let me know… who subbed it/where to watch or download?
(Oh, looks like KAA did eps 1-4. Any ideas on the rest?)
[...] moderate spoilers (as well as a splash of the pretentious philosophical discourse that Akira was railing against). As far as I can see, the only person who’s really attempted to analyze this film in depth [...]
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with overanalyzing anime, especially if that’s how the author likes to write. I just don’t take it as seriously or think about things in that way as the author does. But it helps if what’s being said can be made more accessible to people who don’t get the references or concepts being explained. And it also depends on who the target audience is supposed to be for these ‘serious’ posts.
To be honest, my first thought at this post was “Why are you so serious, Akira?”
You know, I actually have to agree with Akira on this one. Anime may be an art form. But most of all, it is a medium of entertainment. I don’t take the time to over analyze anime for the same reason I won’t for Star Wars, or Shakespeare, or Beowulf, or a porno. It’s all pop culture. Anime is about the viewing experiance, and it there is a message, it will be part of said experiance. To look too much into something often complicates things by circumventing the main idea.
This is not always an issue. looking at Beowulf or a 17th century play from a historical perspective, for instance, offers an insight into the mind of the culture of the time. Sometimes looking too far into something can be an excellent tool for personal introspection. And occasionally, it can just be to have fun. I and a lot of other Evanagelion fans are known for this.
But to dissect every little theme to an Aristotelian principle or Freudian reference is rather empty. If these are there, often they are simple and symbolic, requiring little more than the viewing experiance to grasp the full picture.
P.S. Oh yeah, Ans. I can only speak for Region 1, but Flag has had a domestic release for some time now.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlebqmxtrir9bav?from=Main.WhatDoYouMeanItsNotSymbolic
[...] faith in our community that we will continue to provoke discussion and debate (even debate like this), and that we will continue to learn about the medium of anime from doing so. However, I also [...]
@Kavik Ryx: I laugh-out-loud and die of shock at the same time. If you call Shakespeare “pop culture”, what do you think is not “pop”? What next, the Bible and Torah also “pop culture” books?
The greatest thing about this article is that, as metadiscussion falls firmly within the realm of critique, the discussion is technically in violation of its own precepts (roughly stated as “dissecting things is wrong.”)
I don’t think that Akira is wrong for not wanting to deconstruct everything, but at the same time, there are those reviewers for whom deconstruction is a way of life: they watch a movie and see symbols and references and this is their enjoyment of the thing. One experience isn’t wrong any more than the other is; people just read things at different levels, and it should come as no surprise that if you don’t read things a certain way you may not enjoy having them read to you that way either.
(This last paragraph is, essentially, what TheBigN has said already, but with a postmodernist slant. Enjoy.)
Kavik Ryx, I am scratching my head a little over your post. While indeed Shakespearean works were mass entertainment at the time they were written, the passage of time has elevated Shakespeare from pop culture to erudite literature. Beowulf, similarly, has become relatively obscure, and thus more respectable. Or is it your assertion that a work can never transcend genre?
[...] by moritheil on 04 Mar 2009 at 6:18 pm | Tagged as: Editorials A lot has been said about the art of anime reviewing lately, and as a writer new to the scene it behooves [...]
[...] unohtanut jotain mielenkiintoista tai saanut itseni näyttämään naurettavalta puhumalla puuta heinää jostakin? Utena on minulle sydämen asia, joten arvostaisin [...]
“You know what I’d like to see? Thoughtful bloggers who throw away the philosophical pretense and simply muse about anime on their own, using their own terms. I think that’s infinitely more valid that throwing philosophical terms around. It shows to me that the author can think on his own, rather than borrow ideas from dead men all the time.”
I’m a bit late to this party, but I just had to quote this segment for good measure. I’ve always felt this way about highbrow “critique” and “analysis.” Stop quoting other people. Did they themselves become famous for quoting other people, or did they not come with their own ideas? Seriously. If the point you’re trying to make is sound enough an argument, you shouldn’t have to hide behind a famous name or quote.