CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Writing a paper for class (again), just asking a survey to see where people stand on this issue. This is by no means any kind of accurate and methodical data collection; I just want to see a range of opinions. Would like to develop some discussion and see where my arguments' strengths and weaknesses might lie, so I might throw in some rebuttals and counterexamples; that doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with you.

Here's the question:
The term "anime," derived from the English word "animation," is generally used in the West to describe animation that originates from Japan, although the Japanese use the term to describe animation in general; similarly, "manga" in the West refers to Japanese comic books, while it refers to all comics in the East. Multiple fairly recent movements, such as La nouvelle manga, Original Global Manga, and the outsourcing of Japanese animation in-between frames to Southeast Asia, as well as specific works such as Tekkonkinkreet (a Japan-animated film directed by an American), Shin Angyo Onshi (a comic and animation written by Koreans but produced and animated by both Koreans and Japanese), and LamB (produced by a transnational company, directed, written, acted, and animated all over East and Southeast Asia) are promoted or denominated with these "anime" and "manga" labels both inside and outside of Japan despite not being fully "Japanese." * Do you think there is a proper amount of "Japaneseness," either in language, culture, or some other kind of "inspiration," that is required for a creative work to be allowed to adopt these terms? How much foreign involvement is necessary for a work to lose this designation? Is this merely a matter of etymology and word play, or is it something more?

EDIT: More importantly, WHY do you come to the conclusions that you ultimately do? Also, I'm realizing that Avatar was not a good title to put in regardless, so ignore that.

*I can explain these, and give over 9000 more examples, if you need them.

Thanks~

I think something can be considered anime or manga as long as they get the art right. The content or nationality of the creator doesn't matter to me. For example, I consider Avatar anime because the art doesn't look like a cheap knock off (as opposed to Kappa Mikey or Serenity). I also consider it anime because the story line holds its own against its Japanese counterparts; it has nothing to do with how Asian the story is (though that helps). I find it rather elitist to say something that has good anime art and a good story isn't anime simply because it wasn't created by a Japanese person. More and more, non-Japanese people are learning and perfecting the art and the way of story telling seen in anime and manga, so pretty soon this "anime can only be made by Japanese people" thing will disappear.

[/$0.02]

I personally don't like things such as Avatar being called "Anime". While it is influenced by anime, it's not authentic anime.

So I think term Anime and Manga should be used with what it actually is, which is Japanese Animation and Comics. I don't think just because it has anime-like qualites, it should be called anime, same with manga.

But maybe that's just because I'm a bit weird...haha. But That's What I Think.

But, I also agree with some things LadyRushia said.As long as it's not a cheap knock-off, I guess it's okay with me.

I think something can be considered anime or manga as long as they get the art right. The content or nationality of the creator doesn't matter to me. For example, I consider Avatar anime because the art doesn't look like a cheap knock off (as opposed to Kappa Mikey or Serenity)

Sounds like a good explanation. All right:




Which anime styles does it have to get right?

So I think term Anime and Manga should be used with what it actually is, which is Japanese Animation and Comics.

How Japanese does it have to be? Does it have to be created for a Japanese audience? Afro Samurai wasn't. Does it have to be produced and conceived by Japanese people? What about the Animatrix? Does it have to be animated in Japan? Even Naruto is mostly animated in Korea.

Also, saying "what anime and manga" really are-- the Japanese technically call Batman manga and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends anime. What is the basis of your "definition?"

Again, not saying these thing necessarily because I agree or disagree, but because I would like to hear people think these things through and explain their two cents (^_^)

To keep it simple, here's how I tend to think of these things:

Anime: Japanese animation. (Animation from Japan)
Manga: Japanese manga. (Animation from Japan)

Very generally, I'd say that it being funded/produced by a Japanese company qualifies it.

This keeps things simple, as now things like Avatar become "anime styled".

Though, in general, I dislike both terms. I don't see why it is that animation or comics from Japan need their own special designation from the rest of the world, aside from "Japanese Comic/Animation".

What I meant by "getting it right" in terms of the art is that some of the foreign (mostly American) attempts tend to try to copy a style that is widely recognized as "anime style," and it doesn't work so well. I know the art within anime and manga varies much more than people think, but I had this widely known "anime style" in mind when I made my post (and that would be like the picture of the Haruhi cast you posted).

Also, now that I think of it, I call Avatar "American anime." So far, it's the only show in that category for me. Some people might hate me for that, but whatever. People are gonna call it different things until the categories become more solidified.

animeantics wrote:I personally don't like things such as Avatar being called "Anime". While it is influenced by anime, it's not authentic anime.

minakichan wrote:The term "anime," derived from the English word "animation," is generally used in the West to describe animation that originates from Japan, although the Japanese use the term to describe animation in general]

And,

Wikipedia wrote:The distinctive "large eyes" style of Japanese animation was invented by Tezuka,[2] who based it on cartoons of the time such as Max Fleischer's Betty Boop and Walt Disney's Bambi and Mickey Mouse.

So really, Japanese anime was inspired by American animation and now American animation is being inspired by Japanese animation. If you trace the roots of "authentic Japanese anime/manga," you get Disney and stuff, XD. It's actually a very interesting pattern, and like I said before I think terms may change or solidify when the categories become more concrete.

Very generally, I'd say that it being funded/produced by a Japanese company qualifies it.

Gotham Knight, the Animatrix, and Afro Samurai are all produced, or at least co-produced, by non-Japanese. What about anime that is produced by a Japanese company but directed, screenwritten, animated, originally acted and released, etc by gaijin? Meanwhile, tons of companies that produce media are becoming more and more international; how Japanese does the company have to be?

I had this widely known "anime style" in mind when I made my post (and that would be like the picture of the Haruhi cast you posted).

Fair enough, but (just to nitpick) what happens if I emulate an Urasawa style very well-- one that isn't really Haruhi-esque at all? Nina Matsumoto, who draws Yokaiden which is released in the US in English, has a style that is (or at least was) heavily, heavily influenced by Fujisaki Ryu, a mangaka with a really distinct style that doesn't look like the "typical anime style." Also, is it really fair to discount the second to last picture I had, Sazae-san? It's been THE most popular anime in Japan for decades, and there are a lot of American cartoons that kind of look like it.

So really, Japanese anime was inspired by American animation and now American animation is being inspired by Japanese animation. If you trace the roots of "authentic Japanese anime/manga," you get Disney and stuff, XD. It's actually a very interesting pattern, and like I said before I think terms may change or solidify when the categories become more concrete.

Isn't it lovely how NOTHING IS CERTAIN AT ALL? x3

minakichan wrote:Fair enough, but (just to nitpick) what happens if I emulate an Urasawa style very well-- one that isn't really Haruhi-esque at all?

Hahaha, it's all good. This is a very interesting conversation.

I honestly wouldn't know what to label the two examples you gave, but I see what you're saying with Urasawa's art and that picture you posted. I think that's why the definitions we've set to "anime" and "manga" on this side of the globe are loose and in the process of changing. It's tough because these definitions are pretty subjective.

Taking 20th Century Boys as an example (because its awesome and you posted a picture of it), it's manga in all senses of the word (made in Japan by a Japanese person), but its art isn't very anime-styled at all. So, the definition of "manga" can't rest solely on the art style because the art is varied when you look at it.

Then would it be fair to say that any sort of animation coming out of Japan is anime? I think so, but then what about non-Japanese countries adopting this art style? Maybe it would be best to say "(insert country) anime" and get used to the idea.

In short, I'm starting to think that the definitions need to be changed so that they are broader.

minakichan wrote:Isn't it lovely how NOTHING IS CERTAIN AT ALL? x3

Quite, XD. It just kind of shows how limited language can be and how a lot of things aren't what they seem on the surface.

[quote="minakichan (post: 1273779)"]Gotham Knight, the Animatrix, and Afro Samurai are all produced, or at least co-produced, by non-Japanese. What about anime that is produced by a Japanese company but directed, screenwritten, animated, originally acted and released, etc by gaijin? Meanwhile, tons of companies that produce media are becoming more and more international]

Like I said, I dislike the terms in general anyways. It's things like this that cause it.

But, for the sake of giving you more things for your paper, I'm going to put a bit of thought into this, which will result in my changing my answer.

"Anime" is a section on the DVD rack at your local retailer. The things that appear there are "anime". I'm not joking, either. The true differences between anime and animation are so inconsequential that as long as a company (the ones involved in creating it) sells it as anime, it is anime.

Essentially, the term "anime" was originally and simply the Japanese word for "animation". Then, the western self-proclaimed "otaku" adopted the term (as they often adopt Japanese words into their vocabulary/slang) for the animation that was coming directly out of Japan. The term has now been adopted by marketing and retailing strategists as a way to sell more of "those weird Japanese cartoons." Where "Japanese cartoons" is anything that can be marketed to the "otaku" demographic.

Manga, on the other hand, is much easier. In the US, it can refer to the specific 5.25" x 8", black and white, paperback printed form that many Japanese comics happen to take.

That is definitely a much easier way to look at it, XD.

I like how there are specific terms for Japanese animation and comics. I don't like calling them "Japanese cartoons" or "Japanese comics" because when you say "comics" or "cartoons", it conjures up the wrong images for us Westerners.

I don't mind calling American-made things "anime" or "manga" as long as they have the same look and feel as Japanese stuff-- in a very generalized way, that is. We need to come up with a better term than "OEL" manga, because that term sucks.

So the vibe I'm getting around here is "they're just a bunch of words and terminology is totally imprecise"?

I like how there are specific terms for Japanese animation and comics. I don't like calling them "Japanese cartoons" or "Japanese comics" because when you say "comics" or "cartoons", it conjures up the wrong images for us Westerners.

Hmmm, while it's true that "manga" is all comics in Japan, even they have a specific name for American (usually superhero) comics-- "Amekomi." Also, the West uses bandes dessinées as a specific word for French/Belgian comics (which generally have their own "flavor" like Japanese comics do).

In practicality, there really isn't much difference between Japanese Manga and American comics. Both genres/mediums use sequential images and writing to convey an idea. You read one backwards and the other forward, sitting in a bookstore or someplace comfortable. The language barrier isn't much, ands style is irrelevant. This is Manga, and so is this and this. This is an American comic, as well as this and this. There is no national art style. There is no Glorious Cultural panel order.

However, what we do have is a difference in mentality. Music is music, but you have assorted genres of music, and you can play both Rock and Metal with the same instruments. So while Manga and comics are really just foreign words for the same concept, the handling and execution is what separates them. There is a very American way of thinking about comics, and a very Japanese way. You could probably argue this is a BS answer, since a lot of what I'm talking about is in the details, the planning stages and the finishing touches, rather than just flipping open two comics books and saying "This is Japanese, this is American." And then there's that whole deal about blurring the borders with early Japanese comics being inspired by American comics only to later inspire American comics several years down the road.

A good example of what I mean is in cultural perception. In America comics are largely seen as escapist pulp fiction (whether they actually are or not), whereas Japan accepts it as a valid medium in its own right, leading to a prolific selection of genres and writing styles that simply isn't available in America. Similarly, the processes change. American comics prefer an episodic printing, self-contained stories the start and return at Point Zero, shuffling various artists and writers from project to project. Meanwhile, Japanese Manga tends to shoot for longer narratives, drawn and edited by the same core creative studio, with a strong degree of creator control. Granted this isn't across the board, there are narrative comics and episodic Manga. But you understand where I'm going with this.

LadyRushia (post: 1273774) wrote:What I meant by "getting it right" in terms of the art is that some of the foreign (mostly American) attempts tend to try to copy a style that is widely recognized as "anime style," and it doesn't work so well. I know the art within anime and manga varies much more than people think, but I had this widely known "anime style" in mind when I made my post (and that would be like the picture of the Haruhi cast you posted).

Also, now that I think of it, I call Avatar "American anime." So far, it's the only show in that category for me. Some people might hate me for that, but whatever. People are gonna call it different things until the categories become more solidified.





And,


So really, Japanese anime was inspired by American animation and now American animation is being inspired by Japanese animation. If you trace the roots of "authentic Japanese anime/manga," you get Disney and stuff, XD. It's actually a very interesting pattern, and like I said before I think terms may change or solidify when the categories become more concrete.

Now that I think about it, you're right. Anime was inspired by Disney movies, like Bambi influnced the eyes and such. It's funny that now it's anime influencing American animation.

LadyRushia (post: 1273739) wrote:I think something can be considered anime or manga as long as they get the art right. The content or nationality of the creator doesn't matter to me. For example, I consider Avatar anime because the art doesn't look like a cheap knock off (as opposed to Kappa Mikey or Serenity). I also consider it anime because the story line holds its own against its Japanese counterparts]

I agree.

Any animated show that uses sweatdrops as an exaggerated means of expressing embarrassment, or unease should be labeled anime. Same goes for manga. It should be solely based on this term, because the Western label is getting to be, "too big for its britches," so to speak.

Think about it.

I also like how the respective term for manga in Chinese [manhua] and Korean [manhwa] neatly fit into "Chinese comics," "Korean comics," when there is nothing really that makes them distinct stylistically from manga.

In that sense, I agree with Cognitive Gear; it's about the marketing. *nod*