Discussion Forums > Anime Discussions
Anime generations?
SchoolDaysEX:
Anime changes with time.
--- Quote from: DmonHiro on September 29, 2013, 10:45:21 PM ---tl:dr: they stopped making anime targeted at people like me, so that mean's they're making more crap. Cry me a river.
--- End quote ---
I actually think there will be a day where we will all miss moe and/or anime. Maybe 20 years from now Japan animators with their low incomes causing revolts or Japan's child problem OR blu rays sales plummeting will cause the collapse of anime. Then there will only be truly generic animes. At least now there is a variety.
zherok:
--- Quote from: Zalis116 on September 29, 2013, 10:01:28 PM ---And the common complaint about those leads is that they're too asexual even when opportunities present themselves.
--- End quote ---
If you make a protagonist too interesting, how will you be able to self-insert yourself into the series? ::)
Better to spend the entire time being non-committal about the fantastical events happening around your protagonist.
Volusus:
--- Quote from: Fool010 on September 27, 2013, 01:23:24 PM ---
--- Quote from: Volusus on September 27, 2013, 11:46:49 AM ---
Art is never about entertainment. I have no idea how you could think something like art, which is to do with essence of the most vertical and spiritual, has anything to do with something as subjective and mudane as 'entertainment.' The genius of someone like Debussy is not predicated on how well he is subjectively liked.
Schuon said it best when he claimed that modern art is forever lost because it is disconnected from the objective qualities of forms, colours and dispositions of the material used to create such art. It is aimed at the material, to represent the material, instead of looking toward the spiritual, the Divine, the Logos.
--- End quote ---
Art gives substance to inanity at best, all those nice words and concepts thrown around when talking about it are merely a smokescreen to make it seem headier and important. Art has the ability to elicit emotion which is already enough, imbuing it with mystic virtues is nonsense. One should not give too much value to philosopher's speak, as they're masters in cloud sculpting, abstraction and disconnection being common amongst them.
Your quote is about some guy who sees only the aesthetics of art, therefore completely missing the purpose. Trying to salvage an incomplete view with a nice wrapping of fancy words doesn't cut it. I would've have bought it a couple of years ago when I still gave credit to 'great thinkers', with time passing I started to see them for what they really are : posers in love with their own greatness and eloquency, on a crusade to bring enlightenment to the inferior masses because ... well, gives their ego a boost.
It's quite funny you mention Debussy, as he's been blasted by the guardians of the Holy Grail of Artistic Integrity in his lifetime for not adhering to the ruleset of traditional euphony.
--- End quote ---
Actually, that 'guy' saw anything but the aesthetics of art, but hey, pretty guess.
So basically I claim that art has a higher meaning than simple emotions and you counter it by saying:
-too many nice words
-art cannot rise above simply eliciting emotions
-philosophers are full of shit
Okay then, you go on thinking that there is no distinction between styles of art like sculpture, painting and music other than the emotion that elicit and I'll go on thinking that some art is objectively better because it relates itself to something higher than itself rather than to what it is.
Fool010:
--- Quote from: Volusus on September 30, 2013, 08:03:57 AM ---I'll go on thinking that some art is objectively better because it relates itself to something higher than itself rather than to what it is.
--- End quote ---
That's exactly the kind of pompous prose without actual content that makes me think 'philosophers are full of shit'. Some art can't 'be better' than some other because it's something that can't be measured objectively. Structured argumentation about abstract subjects is no proof, it's merely an explanation for your point of view.
I know only of 2 types of art : art that works and art that doesn't. Some far fetched concepts about 'purity of essence' are irrelevant to that matter. Art that fails to move you and leaves you indifferent is what I consider to be 'bad art'. Any other definition of 'good' or 'bad' art will rely on personal appreciation, no matter how nicely you wrap it up.
Now, if you want to think art is a mystic conduit to higher plans of intellect, nice for you. Let's hope you got fine weather up there.
Volusus:
Thanks for stating exactly what you said in your original post, that you disagree with the idea that art can be anything beyond personal enjoyment or satisfaction.
I am enlightened; I now realize that there is no difference between Beethoven and Armin van Buuren, and that their artistic value is predicated on what I personally enjoy at the time.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version