Anime isn't a style though. This was already covered several times. It's used to describe the "cultural lens" of the creators. There's no "restriction" here, it simply is or it isn't.

 

Everything has already been covered several times at this point. People will have you repeat the points you've already eloquently made until the end of time if you let them.

 

all I know is that the G1 models are Japanese and that the show was drawn by Toei

 

Yeah flame, I like your points and shockwaves too, but :

"While the earliest known Japanese animation dates to 1917, and many original Japanese cartoons were produced in the ensuing decades, the characteristic anime style developed in the 1960s—notably with the work of Osamu Tezuka—and became known outside Japan in the 1980s."

And :

"English-language dictionaries define anime as "a Japanese style of motion-picture animation" or as "a style of animation developed in Japan".[19][20]"

"While different titles and different artists have their own artistic styles, many stylistic elements have become so common that describe them as definitive of anime in general. However, this does not mean that all modern anime share one strict, common art-style. Many anime have a very different art style from what would commonly be called "anime style", yet fans still use the word "anime" to refer to these titles. Generally, the most common form of anime drawings include "exaggerated physical features such as large eyes, big hair and elongated limbs... and dramatically shaped speech bubbles, speed lines and onomatopoeic, exclamatory typography."

Anime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And according to others here, If I am from a "cultural window" or whatever, from japan, dont get outside writers producers - just use Japan directors etc for my animation movie...its "Anime". But if 1 thing is outside, than its not. Thats one definition I got from somebody. In that perspective, how is that not restricting ?

 

I live in USA, so when I goto stores I see a Anime/Japanimation (akira) section, next to Action or Comedy sections or get ready...Animation (family guy) section. All different categoies/sections. In Japan though, any cartoon is all under animation.

 

The original models were done by Shohei Kohara, but they were HEAVILY changed by Floro Dery (though many aspects are still there) before the show was produced, and it's the Dery models that were used in the show.

As for Toei animation doing the animation work, they didn't do all of it, and if having Toei do the animation is sufficient to be considered Anime, then the Ghostbusters, Ninja Turtles and Spider-man cartoons are also Anime. Back then, studios like Toei and later, AKOM were more like Animation clearing houses, factories for cells with animators instead of machines. The Simpsons still has AKOM do it's animation, is the Simpson's K-anime?

Nowadays, the kind of work that Toei did in the 80s are done by studios in Korea (like AKOM), even for Japanese productions. Is nearly all anime (and animation, period), K-anime by that definition?

 

Nothing here contradicts what I've been saying. "Characteristic" just means typical of something. There are multiple styles and stylistic traits that are characteristic of anime, but none of them define it. Occasional works of anime have none of these traits at all.

Those dictionary definitions are:

1) ...questionable, which is not surprising with new words that arise from slang. Seriously, "characterized by highly stylized, colorful art, futuristic settings, violence, and sexuality"? Who wrote that? Whoops! Totoro isn't futuristic, violent, or sexual. I guess it's not anime! FAIL. (Yes, I know what I just said about the word "characteristic" but the absence of all of these things is too common in anime, and their presence too common elsewhere for any of them to qualify as "characteristic" except to someone with only a passing familiarity of the subject.)

2) ...not even in agreement over the etymology of the word (i.e. "where did it come from") with one citing French and another citing English. Basically they don't know anything about the subject, and they're making stuff up. Awesome.

3) ...not using "style" in the sense you are probably thinking of. They're using it in the absolute most general sense possible, and referring to the style of production (which is technically false anyway, since it isn't the same process it was ten years ago, let alone when Tezuka was doing it) NOT a drawing style or distinct, specific visual aesthetic, which is what most normal people mean when they talk about an "anime style." The latter is also the sense I mean when I say that anime is not a style.

So far so good...

Oops! He was looking for "typical," "characteristic," "evocative," or "representative," not definitive. "Definitive" directly contradicts the very next sentence!:

^Mostly back to being correct again...

...only to blow it again. Speech bubbles, typography, and the like are all extremely uncommon in anime. The writer is thinking of manga. Also, "exaggerated physical features such as large eyes, big hair and elongated limbs" describes virtually all cartoon styles everywhere in the world, and tells the reader absolutely nothing unless they already have an idea in their head of what this "style" looks like. It just goes to show that absolutely anybody is allowed to contribute to Wikipedia.

It's possible somebody said that, but it's not quite what most of us have been saying. For example, we've been saying over and over that it doesn't matter where the cells are painted. I said only a couple of posts ago that it doesn't matter where the money comes from. You can even have non-Japanese working on creative elements of the show here or there, but the gist is that the main bulk of the creative process is done from the perspective of Japanese culture. Syd Mead, for example, contributed mechanical designs for Turn-A Gundam, but the series is still anime because the director is Japanese (he also developed the story) as were the script writers, the character designer, the producers, and the primary target audience. One American on the staff drawing robots isn't going to make the overall heart or cultural lens of the production less Japanese.

You can still draw whatever you want, write whatever you want, and do it to your heart's content. Nobody is restricting what you do, but a different label applies. If you're white, you also can't directly contribute to "black culture" as such, even though you can contribute to Jazz and Hip-Hop. If I'm American, I can't contribute to anything new to "French cuisine," no matter how many snails and frogs I cook. A modern Italian can't contribute to Byzantine art, even if he flies to Istanbul to do it, no matter how Roman he is. The fact that we are specifically using the Japanese word for "animation" should tell you something here. Yet everyone is free to make exactly the kind of art they envision, hence they are not restricted.

You're only having problems here because you're thinking "someone says I can't make anime" when that's not how it works. You make what you want to, they make what they want to, and we call it something different based on the culture of origin because it inevitably seeps into the work. Nothing bad happens in that.

 

Anime is a style as far as I can read on the internet and from what I know from art classes. Your "opinion" as to which culture has the rights to use that word as there own is kinda and hate to use this word but ******ed in many ways. If a person of any country draws the same show no matter the country or origin it is still anime period. Sorry flame.

 

If anime is a style, then I dare you to define it in a way that addresses every japanese-produced animation on the planet.

 

It isn't so much the investment part as it goes against the definition you subscribe to.... in what market it is created for.

Again, I have no problem with this. It's just that you leave no open room for others to have a different meaning... when they too have a releavent logic. The meaning of Anime in the west has changed over time, or should I say come to mean? It really isn't your place or any other persons to say that if someone finds outsourcing animation to Japan, and the resulting animation (or style of art) is very similar to what is generally produced for the Japanese market... that, that too shouldn't also be concidered Anime. I don't subscribe to this, and the number or people who might is probably in the minority.... but those who do have their own unique view term which is a bit more inclusive than our own. Is that really such a sin? Because the current fan concenses of the definition of what Anime means is not really a fact. If it was, there wouldn't be any debate on the subject.

My point here is that when Films from other countries (including Animated) are included with every other "hollywood" release, it gets more acknowledgement. The more people who can see it, get exposed to it, the better (in general) a film/series does. When intentionally set apart, forced to sit at the back of the bus... it goes unknowticed except by the smaller crowd of "adventurous" viewers. When those same types will obviously go out of there way to find something mixed in with the usual drek. Now I'm not saying everything should be lumped together... the usually catagories work best....

Comedy/Action/Adventure/SCI FI/Drama/Thriller/Animation/Childrens/TV(I'm not even sure this one should be seperate, as all TV shows can be broken up into all the previously mentioned catagories)

Adding sub catagories only serves to limit the potential audiance. This is the point at which I find terms like Foriegn film or Anime damaging. Especially when they are still strugling to be accepted into the US market. Sure there was a huge Anime boom in the 90's... but has since declined to near life support. Perhaps if it were simply marketed to fans of animation and not just fans of animation from Japan, it would fair a little better.

Infact, before the late 90's Anime releases were mixed in with general animation sections. It wasn't until the boom that it got it's own sub catagory... and genral animtion pretty much got a promotion to the general release areas.... or subjicated to the childrens section. Leaving Anime to only those who are already interested in Japanese Animation. I get that you find this as a helpful distinction.... but from the begining I saw it as harmful trend. Of course it is easier to find what I'm looking for, but at what cost? As a fan I already know what I am looking for, at times years before hand. I know what's coming... and those few second I save going to a dedicated section vs. general catagory of animation (which would have more titles) is insignificant compaired to exposing people who currently believe they dislike Anime, but could change their opinions by simply seeing a title that could catch their interest. It may only be one title, but that is still one step closer to cultural acceptance of Anime.

In the late 90's I knew a couple that believed they absolutly hated Anime. They couldn't stand a second of it. Yet, for some crazy reason they loved Ramna 1/2. Now why they decided to even try it, I don't know. But the point is they did choose to be exposed to it, and they liked it enough to become fans of at least that given series. My thinking is, when Anime is all set aside into one section, people who believe they hate all Anime will never bother to try any of it at all because of their preconcieved opinions..... because they will not browes the Anime section.

I didn't mean Anime is always changing in Japan(which it is)... I (as I hope you knew) meant the term Anime is still in flux in it's meaning outside of Japan. As it has only really been around for about what? 12/13 years? ... and prior to that used different labels for the same general meaning.

With the growing group of young fans exposed to Japanese Animation... it is taken in not as a seperate expression from a foriegn culture... but intergrated into their own. It's kind of along the lines of the Star Wars debate that has been brewing.... who owns something when it becomes part of popular culture... the creator vs. the fans. Strictly speaking, the creator does of course, by law. But there is a moral case being made that the populas does have as un-observed right to it as well. Once something is taken in, and it effects you in great ways.... you own that experence, it has become part of culture... and that is extreamly important and powerful. Anime is becoming such a force. Even though it is suffering finatially... the actual number of fans outside of Japan has never been higher thanks to the internet. To many of these younger fans, it's their primary source of exposer to animation. Hence when some of them want to become animators/story tellers themselves they tend to take the Anime label as their own. It's not just an influence, it's pretty much all they know (at first anyway). You may see it as ingnorance, but is it not really an evolution in the labels meaning? It changes over time to suit the needs of our culture. When the day comes that this is the norm in it's meaning will you still be inflexable enough to accept it?

I said they consider themselves as such. Meaning they see it as a general style. That doesn't mean I do. I'm just see it from their perspective and not just my own.

Sure, but it's the need to have it be mentioned that is the insult. When in a lot of cases these days they think of them selves as being of the actual term.... equal to their japanese counterparts.

I will even relent to their view as it being a style... because in some basic ways I guess it could be viewed as such. There are many general threads in style throught much Anime/manga. Surely there is enough of the you know it when you see it kind of thing to at least see their point.

The only problem with that is that you automaticly think you are the one that is right. It's actually pretty obvious to me that words are designed to be redifined. It's even the root of your argument that outside of Japan the term Anime has been redefined. It's not wrong, it's reality. People just subscribe to many of the different meanings, old and new. Some adhere to the original japanese meaning etc. No one of them is wrong or right. In culture that's how it works.... yeah it's kind of messy.... but like I said before, it's not as simple as black and white as you'd like it to be. And, I can't stop you from fallow your strict definition either.... but I am trying to point out (maybe get you to accept) that other people may not be in as much the wrong as you currently believe.

It's really the same as say Super Hero comics, as that to is generally seen as as style. Meaning, more as I said; a type of art... and each artist puts their own spin on that type, their style. Manga/Anime is the same, as a general type of art it is obviously for the most part, different and set apart from the many other types. Again, the know it when you see it law of culture. Just like, usually when you see an american artist trying to recreate the type/style of Manga/Anime, you can usually tell that it didn't actually come from japan. But there are growing numbers of artists, that have taken in Anime to such a level that their art really has taken on the flavor of a japanese artist, even with their own unique style. At that point haven't they earned the right to be considered as the type of artist they claim to be? As an artist, I wouldn't be insulted if someone from another country took to my particular type of art.... I would be flattered and proud of it's reach.

It is a way more interesting that, Japanese Animation as a whole was so influenced by Disney, but in no way really goes out the way to acknowlege it, where as we take the same kind of influence and simply wish to become a part of it by taking it's reginal label (we redefined). Japan didn't become a country of Disney artists, but our artists want to become Anime artists.

I guess we should care, because the artist cares. Art is, and always has been a form of expression. How an artist chooses to express his or herself is there fore extreamly personal and should be respected.

An extream compairison to hopefully point out the flaw of logic, that a group peope thinking one thing makes it true? When your whole argument is that Anime's meaning has been given a unigue meaning seperate from it's original japanese meaning based souly on that is the currently the popular thought at the momment? So if enough people did believe they were vampires.... wouldn't that also make it true? No. Someone thinking they are a fictional character or creature is fantasy. But, someone thinking they are a part of an artistic movement that has grown out side of it's country of origin isn't such a crazy thought.

 

Big O season 2 was basically the episodes of season 1 that got cut from the production schedule due to low ratings, which basically negates its place in this debate. It wasn't that new stories were written with the American audience in mind. It was that American money allowed production to be completed on the long-form story written for the Japanese audience but left unfinished. I think this is pretty well documented.

 

Is it really accurate to say that anime can be distinguished by its 'Japanese sensibilities' or 'Japanese cultural influences', though, given the fact that lots of anime series don't even have Japan as their setting?

 

Yeah, it is. It means storytelling sensibilities, not physical location of the story.

 

I haven't seen much to distinguish anime storytelling sensibilities and those of Western animation. (shrug) Maybe I'm just dense.

 

I wouldn't say dense. You just don't see it. But if you ever study writing or film, you may get into it. For example, Kurosawa has been considered one of the most popular and accessible Japanese filmmakers in the United States and in Europe, but in his own country, he was criticized for making movies that were too Western (the region, not the genre) in style...basically for the very things that made his movies so accessible here.

 

Well I like everyones points so far.

Me and back pack, brought up separate sections in video store for a decade or so Action/Comedy/Anime/Animation in USA. While in japan all animation is under animation.

While I like flames points, I dont think he addressed this ^.

And flame...you see the wiki definition realizes it can mean 2 different definitions to those of East and West. I'm not trying to debate the wiki definition, just show how it can be confusing to others.

I still think its unfair if I draw direct produce write a Anime movie as a American, it wont end up in Anime section of my country. Because of the stereotype it must be mostly or all made by the Japanese from a cultural window. Thats restricting.

And yes white people can be in a HIPHOP CULTURE...as you said, but adding onto that :

So to say a different race or whatever cant be in anothers races culture I believe is untrue, most blacks in USA, most Asians, most Mexicans and PR etc have been and are in a European Culture (white) country, like the USA and about race many abandon white/indian or fully white babies were raised by Indians and a few even became chiefs, because they were accepted as one of them, and a culture can be passed on.

Im sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, but I wanted to point this out.

 

Read the thread. It's been covered 5 or 6 times already.

 

Gonna have to winnow this down to the important parts...

Covered by others already

Except that it hasn't. There are simply a lot of people that have not analyzed animation very closely, who see some traits that are common within anime, and assume "oh, this is what anime is." There is no need to change the definition accommodate them, nor to allow them to do it for us.

What video stores do has literally no bearing on this discussion. Most of them can't even keep straight what belongs in their "anime" section and what doesn't. It's a common occurrence to find Aeon Flux, He-Man, and Fritz the Cat there. This is basically nonsense.

Longer than that.

These are the worst kinds of "fan." Their position is posited as populist, but basically boils down to "I'm not getting what I want. I demand to be pandered to by the artist." You don't own something just by liking it, even if you get a lot of people together with you.

No, it really is ignorance, of the highest level. You can't hope to become an animator without learning something about art and animation. If you learn even a little about this and don't stubbornly hang on to an imaginary "style that is anime" you will inevitably see that such a style doesn't exist. Now, there isn't quite such a barrier to simply drawing stuff, but still drawings are not anime. If anything, they would be manga. I think we can still scoff at the idea that someone wants to make manga without first knowing anything about it.

If we do not coddle and enable ignorance, that day will not come.

Again, not my fault if they are wrong. Did you not see where I said I've talked to many of these people? After long discussions of style, they are usually forced to admit that no actual definition of an "anime" or "manga" style exists. But "manga" sounds cooler to them than "comic." That's the actual insult. That's a horrible reason to start redefining words.

No, I spent years ignorantly thinking there was an anime "style" and trying to emulate it myself. I understand the other side of the argument probably better than you do. There's no place you can really go with it that I haven't already been to and learned better the hard way. It is much better knowing that I can draw whatever I want however I want, and that classification of it is merely academic. I also know from long experience that the regional/cultural definition of anime is the only one that does not completely collapse under examination. Every other definition leads to absurd conclusions. Try it.

Nope. That's a genre. People confusing the two totally different types of category is not my problem.

That's a statement you'll need to back up before you continue. I encourage you to read about Osamu Tezuka (the "father of manga") and see if you still agree with what you wrote here. Everyone who aspires to to follow in the tradition of Japanese manga should know about Tezuka and his influences, and he was quite open about them. It is common knowledge. Interestingly, I find that it is often the "American Manga" artists that try to ignore or downplay the Disney influence. I wonder why (actually, no, I know exactly why).

Really? What happened to the fans owning stuff rather than the artist? You can't reasonably support one position by arguing both sides. But anyway, this is a misunderstanding of the artist, and I would encourage them to think more about what styles are, where they come from, and how they can build on their influences rather than being a mere copycat or trying to pidgeonhole themselves into a category.

You've almost got my point. As I've been pointing out already, a group of people thinking that there is a drawing style that can be defined as "anime" does not make it true. If you look at the key works that are considered "anime" and try to work out a common basic style, it falls apart. There's no reality in the idea that the style exists, and plenty in the idea that it does not.

 

Southtown, you didnt quote the whole sentence, I meant this should be addressed :

"Me and back pack, brought up separate sections in video store for a decade or so Action/Comedy/Anime/Animation in USA. "

I havent read all of thread, just most of it...I realize this been covered :

"While in japan all animation is under animation."

But this causes confusion and proves the many posters points as well as wiki, that there are 2 definitions :

"Me and back pack, brought up separate sections in video store, for a decade or so Action/Comedy/Anime/Animation in USA. While in japan all animation is under animation. I still think its unfair if I draw direct produce write a Anime movie as a American, it wont end up in Anime section of my country. Because of the stereotype it must be mostly or all made by the Japanese from a cultural window from people who put the movies on the shelf and their view of definition like perspectives of posts in this thread. Thats what I meant by restricting. Or call it stereotyping or whatever word you feel applies."

And I await the culture race restriction responses by flame in my last post.

 

Also just because there are earlier posts covering things that dont mean we cant debate that. Somebody explained how g1 HM was anime in detail, yet everyone keeps coming into thread saying "of course nothing about g1 was anime". See thats incorrect. Technically 1 series or maybe more idk all of them maybe masterforce ??? was anime.

Also I see the restricting reasons why TFTM isnt anime, but many sites list it as such, i posted link earlier. At my blockbuster guess where the TFTM dvd is displayed...in the "Anime Section". I agree its not Anime from the restrictions why posted, but why restrict anything. These are things that cause confusion and why I like the different and more direct definitions of peoples posts.

This is how the definition should be then from reading so many posts :

Anime (1) - Animation from Japan, with certain characteristic styles or not (lol) suggestive that most of or all of aspects of the movie are directly created by Japanese artists (directors writers animators) reflecting a certain Japanese culture aspect such as Akira...defined in Western regions as a certain genre/category apart from other Animation, like Simpsons.

Anime (2) - Short for Animation, all animation across the world would go into the Anime category there, Akira to Simpsons.