The Ranting/Debate Thread
- Thread starter Obeliskos
- Start date
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
LOL!!!!
Cheers*
LOL!!!!
Cheers*
Newbie
Lurker
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reputation score
- 180
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
The way a debate works is you set a point that we are to argue: "Western cartoons are shit"
Then you define the metric by which this will be judged. You opened with what amounted to "Prove me wrong." This was a challenge readily met, so you changed it to a metric of "dedication and effort", which was then changed to "drawn more from the heart". The fact that you are trying to determine their value as art does not change that the metrics you are trying to measure by are both incredibly vague and constantly shifting.
I am trying to argue against your point, that's all.
Then I will point out that the art in anime tends to be immensely similar across the board visually, whereas western cartoons have far more varied styles.
The way a debate works is you set a point that we are to argue: "Western cartoons are shit"
Then you define the metric by which this will be judged. You opened with what amounted to "Prove me wrong." This was a challenge readily met, so you changed it to a metric of "dedication and effort", which was then changed to "drawn more from the heart". The fact that you are trying to determine their value as art does not change that the metrics you are trying to measure by are both incredibly vague and constantly shifting.
I am trying to argue against your point, that's all.
Then I will point out that the art in anime tends to be immensely similar across the board visually, whereas western cartoons have far more varied styles.
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
I just didn't clarify enough. My bad. I did fix that though:
That's the whole reason I mentioned that if you go to a KP fan forum and tell them how the art style lacks effort, they'll bitch slap ya. It's because there's this ridiculous alt side to the topic, where apparently western cartoons like KP can be compared to Afro Samurai on some art level. At the core of this argument, you have to use the values of art. I find that the biggest value is one's effort.
I just didn't clarify enough. My bad. I did fix that though:
Now argue your point already.
That's the whole reason I mentioned that if you go to a KP fan forum and tell them how the art style lacks effort, they'll bitch slap ya. It's because there's this ridiculous alt side to the topic, where apparently western cartoons like KP can be compared to Afro Samurai on some art level. At the core of this argument, you have to use the values of art. I find that the biggest value is one's effort.
Newbie
Lurker
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reputation score
- 180
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
But there's no objective way to measure the effort one put into the art direction unless you are the artist. Everything else is basically hearsay, depending on how trustworthy the source is. Again, you are picking terms that are difficult to pin down and measure, which makes for a terrible debate, but a much better argument.
And you seem intent on comparing Kim Possible and Afro Samurai, as though KP was anywhere near the same tier of effort. To put this in perspective: KP was a long running series, so considerations had to be taken to simplify the animation and make it cheaper, easier, and faster to produce, regardless of how extravagant any hypothetical character designs were. Afro Samurai was six episodes, and therefore they were able to make many design decisions that would be otherwise untenable. It wasn't something they had to do for years, so they could do whatever they wanted. Better is to compare AS to animated films, as I'm not entirely sure that there are any cartoon mini-series out there.
Even then, art is largely a matter of opinion, so the problem remains.
EDIT: I have been called many things on this forum, asshole is rarely among them. I was just trying to be clear, as we seemed to be in disagreement over the debate we were having and it's course thus far.
But there's no objective way to measure the effort one put into the art direction unless you are the artist. Everything else is basically hearsay, depending on how trustworthy the source is. Again, you are picking terms that are difficult to pin down and measure, which makes for a terrible debate, but a much better argument.
And you seem intent on comparing Kim Possible and Afro Samurai, as though KP was anywhere near the same tier of effort. To put this in perspective: KP was a long running series, so considerations had to be taken to simplify the animation and make it cheaper, easier, and faster to produce, regardless of how extravagant any hypothetical character designs were. Afro Samurai was six episodes, and therefore they were able to make many design decisions that would be otherwise untenable. It wasn't something they had to do for years, so they could do whatever they wanted. Better is to compare AS to animated films, as I'm not entirely sure that there are any cartoon mini-series out there.
Even then, art is largely a matter of opinion, so the problem remains.
EDIT: I have been called many things on this forum, asshole is rarely among them. I was just trying to be clear, as we seemed to be in disagreement over the debate we were having and it's course thus far.
Last edited:
Unknown Squid
Aurani's Wife
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,256
- Reputation score
- 314
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Adding my small bit to this, without properly reading any of the previous discussion for an attempt at a fresh take on it.
When I think of Western vs Japanese animation, it's not really effort or quality of art which comes to mind first. I'll start off sticking to kids animation for now. Thinking back to my childhood tv days (4 std channels only, no cartoon network or anything), off the top of my head I think of this...
W: Scooby Doo, Pinky & The Brain, Hey Arnold, Recess, Spider Man,
J: Pokemon, Digimon, Cardcaptors,
The key difference between those two lists, is that one side is comprised mainly of single ep gag series with little or no story, and even less continuing story. Whilst the other are based around a continuing unfolding story. What about Spider Man you say? That had an evolving story too. Coincidentally it's by far my favourite of that top list.
The likes of Recess I enjoyed, but was never really bothered about the prospect of missing an episode. Scooby Doo bored me senseless every time. The J list though, me and my brothers would fanatically make time to view every episode. If something threatened to prevent us, we'd go to great lengths to make sure we could get it recorded or find alternative viewing sources.
Yes, you can find both styles on either side, but for Japan, a two dozen ep story based season is the standard. In the US, light hearted comedic animation is the standard. It's what separates Anime and Cartoon for me. The art style is a side issue. There's good stuff on both sides, just one has a heck of a lot more for me.
(Refraining from writing more for now, since I hate TL
R debate posts. Prefer to keep em short.)
Adding my small bit to this, without properly reading any of the previous discussion for an attempt at a fresh take on it.
When I think of Western vs Japanese animation, it's not really effort or quality of art which comes to mind first. I'll start off sticking to kids animation for now. Thinking back to my childhood tv days (4 std channels only, no cartoon network or anything), off the top of my head I think of this...
W: Scooby Doo, Pinky & The Brain, Hey Arnold, Recess, Spider Man,
J: Pokemon, Digimon, Cardcaptors,
The key difference between those two lists, is that one side is comprised mainly of single ep gag series with little or no story, and even less continuing story. Whilst the other are based around a continuing unfolding story. What about Spider Man you say? That had an evolving story too. Coincidentally it's by far my favourite of that top list.
The likes of Recess I enjoyed, but was never really bothered about the prospect of missing an episode. Scooby Doo bored me senseless every time. The J list though, me and my brothers would fanatically make time to view every episode. If something threatened to prevent us, we'd go to great lengths to make sure we could get it recorded or find alternative viewing sources.
Yes, you can find both styles on either side, but for Japan, a two dozen ep story based season is the standard. In the US, light hearted comedic animation is the standard. It's what separates Anime and Cartoon for me. The art style is a side issue. There's good stuff on both sides, just one has a heck of a lot more for me.
(Refraining from writing more for now, since I hate TL
R debate posts. Prefer to keep em short.)
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Now you've just hit the point. This is where my aggravation comes from. People are comparing shows like KP and Afro Samurai. Now it's not a direct comparison.
If you delve into the art community, you'll find that unless you draw from popular western cartoons, your rank in viewers and fanbase will grow like a snail (no matter have well you draw). Yet if you start by drawing the shitty toon stuff, it cranks fast. The really silly thing is, you can draw just as good as the western toon and still get more attention.
The ultimate point I'm leading towards is greed and selfishness. We fail to look at the truth behind the making and instead focus on our personal opinions. This is why I can't get away with calling western cartoons "shitty art".
Now you've just hit the point. This is where my aggravation comes from. People are comparing shows like KP and Afro Samurai. Now it's not a direct comparison.
If you delve into the art community, you'll find that unless you draw from popular western cartoons, your rank in viewers and fanbase will grow like a snail (no matter have well you draw). Yet if you start by drawing the shitty toon stuff, it cranks fast. The really silly thing is, you can draw just as good as the western toon and still get more attention.
The ultimate point I'm leading towards is greed and selfishness. We fail to look at the truth behind the making and instead focus on our personal opinions. This is why I can't get away with calling western cartoons "shitty art".
Newbie
Lurker
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reputation score
- 180
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
But you are doing the exact same thing because it is impossible for you to know the truth behind it's creation. You can only know what you are told, and the people who don't have your attitude simply don't care. So it's entirely possible that every story of an impassioned artist is just an effort to draw your attention to or raise your opinion of a project.
But you are doing the exact same thing because it is impossible for you to know the truth behind it's creation. You can only know what you are told, and the people who don't have your attitude simply don't care. So it's entirely possible that every story of an impassioned artist is just an effort to draw your attention to or raise your opinion of a project.
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
I can admit enough to make a case.
A few of my buddies draw for a personal passion that has nothing to deal with the audience. I can also note people who draw purely for money. Then of course, there's the people who draw for the fame. These types are not hard to spot.
The question then, is what is art? Art has many definitions and is quite wide with opinion. But all the art has things in common: effort, dedication and passion. People have to commit themselves one way or another, in order to begin to call it art. I believe this is how we measure.
This goes back a little to you point on the Simpsons. We can take the amount of time it took someone to draw a piece, yet we also have to use the outcome of that effort. As an example: someone takes one week (night and day) to make an illustration and the outcome looks supreme. Then someone else takes two days to create virtually the same looking illustration. Which piece has more value?
Now we're at the problem again. You can't compare without suggesting that the viewers control the art. This is my frustration. I figure that if I can argue to them that the people they're admiring so much, lack effort on enormous levels, then they may learn to shut the fuck up. The lack of effort is there, but it's no reason to say who is good or bad.
Unless money is the reason to why something is being made, then the viewer's opinion is worthless. Everyone has their tastes, and yet for viewers to come in and try to coordinate good artists vs. the bad ones (all because of their stupid opinion), art looses real value.
That real value is the artist him/herself. We see that with how much dedication, effort and passion they express. Regardless of the levels of effort, we still should never compare. People ignore this because of their greed.
That's all I really was leading towards when I started this crack-ass debate.
Cheers*
I can admit enough to make a case.
A few of my buddies draw for a personal passion that has nothing to deal with the audience. I can also note people who draw purely for money. Then of course, there's the people who draw for the fame. These types are not hard to spot.
The question then, is what is art? Art has many definitions and is quite wide with opinion. But all the art has things in common: effort, dedication and passion. People have to commit themselves one way or another, in order to begin to call it art. I believe this is how we measure.
This goes back a little to you point on the Simpsons. We can take the amount of time it took someone to draw a piece, yet we also have to use the outcome of that effort. As an example: someone takes one week (night and day) to make an illustration and the outcome looks supreme. Then someone else takes two days to create virtually the same looking illustration. Which piece has more value?
Now we're at the problem again. You can't compare without suggesting that the viewers control the art. This is my frustration. I figure that if I can argue to them that the people they're admiring so much, lack effort on enormous levels, then they may learn to shut the fuck up. The lack of effort is there, but it's no reason to say who is good or bad.
Unless money is the reason to why something is being made, then the viewer's opinion is worthless. Everyone has their tastes, and yet for viewers to come in and try to coordinate good artists vs. the bad ones (all because of their stupid opinion), art looses real value.
That real value is the artist him/herself. We see that with how much dedication, effort and passion they express. Regardless of the levels of effort, we still should never compare. People ignore this because of their greed.
That's all I really was leading towards when I started this crack-ass debate.
Cheers*
Last edited:
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Sure you can compare, but when it comes down to art, comparing is only showing how selfish you are. The comparison is completely unnecessary. It's not where art values come from. They come from the artist.
Sure you can compare, but when it comes down to art, comparing is only showing how selfish you are. The comparison is completely unnecessary. It's not where art values come from. They come from the artist.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,806
- Reputation score
- 312
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
you aren't comparing art you are comparing over all quality of two similar things.
if something has poor art but is so imersive that you forget about it, it could easily be better than something with perfect artistry (if anything it should be disascosiated from the artist in this discussion). Sure having good art helps but it is only part of something that makes the final decision about quality, you also have to take everything else into account.
you aren't comparing art you are comparing over all quality of two similar things.
if something has poor art but is so imersive that you forget about it, it could easily be better than something with perfect artistry (if anything it should be disascosiated from the artist in this discussion). Sure having good art helps but it is only part of something that makes the final decision about quality, you also have to take everything else into account.
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,983
- Reputation score
- 434
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Just so you know, Afro Samurai is a bad example of awesome anime, when I'm pretty sure it's a Western/Eastern compilation...
Just so you know, Afro Samurai is a bad example of awesome anime, when I'm pretty sure it's a Western/Eastern compilation...
Incubus
Horn Dog
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 2,938
- Reputation score
- 320
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
I'd call our culture closer to a native american or mesoamerican one than eastern.
trollface.bmp
I'd call our culture closer to a native american or mesoamerican one than eastern.
trollface.bmp
E
Exofluke
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
@Newbie
Asians win again. *total joke*
That's only a matter of personal tastes. Comparison between art is not worth anything when trying to suggest that your comparison is good or bad. People will decide for themselves on the art they find inspiring, stimulating or whatever. I think it's wrong to compare artists, ever. Whatever my opinion is, shouldn't have to play a roll in someone else's decision on art.
@Newbie
Asians win again. *total joke*
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,983
- Reputation score
- 434
E
Exofluke
Guest
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,983
- Reputation score
- 434
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
How can you spark a debate by saying that all western animation is "shit shit shit", then argue that anime is much much better than western animation, then suddenly go "oh sorry, comparing artists is wrong,"
I'm just confused is all.
How can you spark a debate by saying that all western animation is "shit shit shit", then argue that anime is much much better than western animation, then suddenly go "oh sorry, comparing artists is wrong,"
I'm just confused is all.