Why is anime trying to be artsy now?

Gankutsuou is a few years old now, so that hardly qualifies as recent. Also, this just occurred to me, but are Shaft "artsy" or are they just "different"? I mean you just go ahead and assume that they're being "artsy" to cover up for their lack of budget. Who the hell labeled Shaft as "artsy" in the first place?!


You know what REALLY fails though? A low-budget anime that makes no attempt to cover up its low-budgetness. I mean, come on! Can't these other guys at least TRY?

How dare they increase production values! I am outraged!

@Teclo: you're analysis is spot on. I just can't stomach Trapeze though.

I think if one looks hard enough, one will be able to tell if the animation staff is skimping on production value. Best way to compare is to take the first episode or two and compare the quality with the other episodes. If there's a drop, you'll know it, e.g. The Third, Aoi Hitomi no Shoujo where couple of episodes used cheap animation to fill in two or three episodes.

Finding out about a lack of funding that's not visible on the screen is much tougher, but these cases you look at the plot direction and pace. If a sudden or somewhate abrupt shift in pace occurs, you'll know that something's not right with the directors and producers, e.g. NGE episode 17/18 and onwards.

I can dig that. Although I pay more attention to the plot than the animation, making it easier for me to enjoy a series with bad animation but tells a good story.



4 years; not really that old for the anime industry. Might be just difference of opinions since I consider 5 years or less to be recent-ish.



Apparently, you haven't really been around the anime reviewing sites or you would definitely have known people are labeling Bakemonogatari as "artsy".



Don't have to make it "artistic" and put in spazztic static shots to "try" and make it better. When they do this kind of shit, it makes it seems like they're trying to fool the audience base (which includes me) thinking they're stupid enough to fall for it.

If you don't have enough budget, then just try and make the animation as best you can. Unless you're Evangelion broke and have to put in pencil animations, then just stop.

First off, I have been around to know that people are labeling it as "artsy". But you're blaming Shaft for trying to be "artsy" to cover up the low budget despite knowing that? Despite knowing that Shaft themselves haven't claimed to be "artsy"? Shaft even admitted in an episode of SZS that some of the techniques they used can look cheap. Recognize the difference between "Shaft" and "other people".


I'll be blunt, when facing Shaft low-budget and *insert other studio here* low-budget, I'll prefer Shaft because at least they do interesting things with their low-budget productions. Also, Shaft isn't trying to fool you. Once again, Shaft hasn't claimed being "artsy". People are making you think that they're trying to fool you, not Shaft. If you don't like the style, fine, but don't place blame where it doesn't belong.

The reason for me believing you were oblivious to the fact that Shaft was considered "artsy" was because of this statement:



Just wanted to make sure you weren't missing all the reviewers who have labeled Shaft as an artsy studio.



The fact that Shaft is claiming their works as cheesy doesn't mean anything. I can call an artwork I'm working on that I believe to be artistic, "cheesy" as well. Also, I came to the conclusion that they were going for an "artsy" look, on my own. Input from "other people" just further solidified my belief that Shaft was trying to be "artsy".

You seem to be mistaken when you say I'm blaming them for trying to better their animation despite low budget. This can't be further from the truth. What I am blaming them for is a their failure compounded by their failure to hide their original purpose. But the fact that I consider some artsy anime as a failure is a personal opinion, which I thought I would share upon the OP request.

Another point to consider: We aren't talking about Shaft works. We're talking about a singular and specific work called Bakemonogatari where their effects weren't meant to be cheesy.



If I don't like the artistic style the studio is going with, then who am I to blame? Also, the whole animation/movie industry is based on fooling the audience. Just that when they do a bad job, it just shows they thought they could get away with a cheap trick, which is saying they thought their audience's standards are low enough that they would like it. It's assumptions like these that agitates me.

As long as anime isn't turned fully 3-d, anything is a-OK with me.

Sum it all up to rhetoric failure. I was trying to point out that your view of Shaft attempting to be "artsy" has been shaped by the views of other (not necessarily well-informed) people thinking that Shaft is "artsy". For all we know, this is just how Shaft does its anime, and may not actually be a means to cover up "cheapness" or seem "artsy".


Their "original purpose"? That's assuming you, or anyone else, actually knows what that is (beside making money).


My apologies. It's just that when you stated your view it sounded like a "I don't like it just because it's popular" reaction. I don't get your "fooling the audience" view at all though.

Time for an example. Picasso. Was Picasso trying to be more "artsy" than his peers? Was he trying to hide a lack of skill? Or was that just his style and didn't care what other people thought of it? Granted, it is more or less impossible to answer these questions, but it's something to think about.

People sometimes define artsy as out of the norm, or not conforming to the set trend. Seeing as how Bakemonogatari's art style is somewhat original and not of the set trend, I believe this definition fits.

Also, again, let me state that I came to the conclusion Bakemonogatari's art style was artsy on my own, just as you came to your own conclusion that Shaft is not an artsy studio.



That's what I believe, and you can believe otherwise. It's an assumption I made and unless convinced, I'll continue to believe in my own assumption.



Again, can't be further from the truth. Most of the entertainment I enjoy is mainstream. Glad you figured out my true feelings towards this matter.

As for the fooling the audience analogy: It's not a new concept. All filmographers and animators are basically trying to convince the audience that their techniques or animations are aesthetically pleasing.



Completely different scenario. Although I do consider Picasso as artsy since he went beyond the norm and helped conceive Cubism. Also, Picasso was already a well established artist who had skill in realism, making it possible to answer your "unanswerable" question.

Trying to be "innovative" and save money and trying to be "innovative" and covering for your lack of skill isn't really comparable.

anime should be more like Kara no Kyoukai OVAs

Gankatsuou was fine and so was Zetsubou

the others not so fine i think

however id like to think of them trying to catch your eye more often than not

Somehow, I think that metaphorical arrow went right over your head.


That's assuming that they even care about aesthetics ... Cat Soup comes to mind, but since your view is correct most of the time (now that you have defined what you meant), I'll let it go.


I was hoping you'd ignore that ... well, I'm too lazy right now to come up with a better example ...


So "The ends justify the means", huh?

Oh, I'm sorry. It was my mistake for believing that, for once, you weren't speaking in a roundabout way.



You seriously believe Bakemonogatari's producers who went as far as to invent their own creative style don't care about their aesthetics?



Is that quote supposed to be relevant to what I said?

To many colors flashes, it hurts my eyes.

Ouch.


You seriously believe that people don't create their art styles based around what they are comfortable with?


It kind of has to be, doesn't it? You differentiate the two based on the results. One is "saving money" the other is "covering lack of skill". The means to achieve either end is likely to be the same. So yeah, it's relevant.

Comfortable with? Coming up with a new style isn't comfortable and putting it to practice untested is another matter. Actually I don't even know why I'm bothering to counter argue this point since first and foremost, art directors are artists. Why wouldn't artists care about aesthetics?



In this situation we were focusing on their reason, making it irrelevant.