hiver said:
I posted a few stills that are examples. The whole movie is an example.
Children's cartoons are examples? Nigga please.
Is playing dumb a counter argument now?
Nope, it's the premise behind pretentious shit as Rococo - which, by the way, isn't art because it doesn't retain purity of form.
Its just one detail in the whole tapestry.
That one detail just tells the viewer how much work effort and talent goes into creation of the whole piece, plus its amazing to everyone who ever attempted to draw something. everyone that knows anything about illustration or drawing.
Effort, yes. Talent, in the broad sense, maybe. True talent, as in artistic talent, a definite
no. That drawing could have been made by pretty much anyone from deviantart - a place where you'll find thousands of people who can draw like that. By your standards they're at the same level as Miyazaki, or whatever. Just because they drew something pretty and detailed.
Your lolgic fails.
It is creation of something beautiful just for the joy of it.
Creating something beautiful for the joy of it doesn't meet the criteria for art, sorry. You may love doing your work as much as you could, but if you create something shitty it's still shitty - and thus, not art.
It transmits love, pure love for the medium because Miyazaki could have made that room much, much more simpler and it would still serve its purpose.
No, it transmits "I'll make this room full of detail so people go 'Ooh, pretty' andw my work is art because it's full of little curves, I mean, that's exactly where artistic talent is at!".
Well, probably not that cynical (hopefully), but something along those lines, yes.
It transmits and is a part of the main theme of the movie - a wizard that has everything, all the shiny toys yet doesnt have a heart which is a sickness that is killing him. He has that amazing room and his moving castle , the powers and wonders and yet he is lying there, dying, unable to really care for himself and thus for anything that surrounds him.
This is in the children stories level. If that is your intellectual standard...
It may not be super awesomly deep and groundbreaking but the story told is true. It has a heart and its a product of love while clearly being a work of master of illustration and animation.
BWAHAHAHA, the characters barely move their mouths when they speak and you cite them as masters of animation! That's a good one. Also, even if it has a heart, that doesn't mean what he created is good. Alpha Protocol is a game with a lot of passion behind but the end result is still a piece of shit.
To be honest ,it looks like Dragon Ball Z, for fuck's sake. Actually, DBZ is far more interesting in a pop culture sense than that pretentious crap.
Minimalistic approach of drawing characters is an old anime thing. Its part of the overall style and it does have its own charm and use.
Even though it started as a technical consequence - it isnt just that depending on the vision and intention of the creator and the movie in question.[/quote]
It's minimalist on purpose, because you can't draw a tens of thousands incredibly detailed characters (which still wouldn't qualify as art if drawn as devoid of imagination as those backgrounds) without spending a fortune on animators, editors, resources, and whatnot.
Ofcourse things just seem simple at first look, especially when viewed out of context.
In Ghost that difference is a part of the story and main theme. Of course.
It was used, intentionally, to achieve a certain effect.
and more then that.
Not only does it fit with main theme of "What is human if your whole body is artificial - what is individuality - what is a mind - can performing a physical action achieve perfection of movement and intention and become a value in on itself or is it the same as random thought in a ghost, irrelevant?" (just to name a few)
Those were cool things, but they were kinda like that, I mean literal "What is human if your whole body is artificial - what is individuality - what is a mind - can performing a physical action achieve perfection of movement and intention and become a value in on itself or is it the same as random thought in a ghost, irrelevant?" questions without further exploration, and therein would have lied creative wisdom. It might make emo collegiate-level nerds crap in their paints, ask themselves whether "love can blossom in the battlefield" or not, but it's not a Dostoyevsky in my book. Nor a Repin. Nor a Bach.
At least for people with taste and expectations. If you want to make art out of whatever abstract posmodernist jew throws at you, be my guest - but don't blame me when culture becomes a pit devoid of soul, essence, creativity, skill and imagination and just a circle-jerk about giant turds and vaginas.
- it also fits with dystopian atmosphere of the setting and forces the viewer to pay more attention to inner values and themes of the movie and characters rather then concentrating on too much bloom and next gen graphics and special effects.
Oh yeah, dystopian future setting. Totally not like every other Anime ever
Topping next-gen games in terms of depth isn't particularly hard. Even Super Mario Bros. (a fucking plumber that jumps on turtles and eats mushrooms to grow bigger and shoot fire on a quest to save a princess in a lava castle from a talking dinosaur) has more depth than the shit they toss out nowadays - you're at that level pal. If a crapfest of a movie like Ghost in the Shell made you go "Wow, awesome DEEP!" you should really hit the books in a desperate attempt to save yourself, otherwise you're just another lazy faggot who adopts moronic pop animation as its excuse for mild brain damage from unexpected activity.
Its old school, its hard core and its a limitation turned into a tool of storytelling.
ART.
Nope. It's not aesthetically pleasing, it's nothing new, it's a fucking animated drawing of piss-poor quality (among other things), so no, it's not art, however pretentious adjectives you want it to tag along with.
Am i wrong in concluding you didnt see any of these movies cept maybe Ghost?
Frankly, until you do there isnt anything we have to talk about because by looking at just some screen you cant figure out the whole deal - and you can only come to some personal conclusions which will require walls of text that will have no result or affect on your understanding.
A weeaboo faggot once told me "If you hate anime, you gotta totally watch Ghost in the Shell, it's of the very best in the genre, you can't go wrong"
Watched it, found some stuff mildly interesting, was left sorely disappointed on how none of the themes were developed at all - no content = boring, so I gave the genre the finger, because honestly, if that's the best you can throw...
The whole movie is ART. The art comes from gestalt effect of its parts. Its a sum greater then them alone. Ive said so already.
So its pointless if you choose one detail and complain it lacks what the whole creation achieves.
The whole is nothing. No theme is developed. There is no link between soul and conscience, no exploration as to why the computer entitiy should be considered alive, what the fuck happened during the merging - nothing.
It's just a puerile "LOL DOES AI HAV LIEK LIEF". There's tons of science fiction books that explore the theme much more deeply than that piece of pretentious crap filled to the craphole with Anime cliches.
