| QUOTE (Tenebrae Candidae @ Jan 31 2014, 11:19 AM) |
| 1:Even if someone is an outgoing person with social mastery, it doesn't mean they can draw which facial expressions and body movements they look at daily, plenty of people don't notice these things other than passively (how often would you see people describe the distortions of the face in order to describe what someone looked like when they were angry instead of just going all, "That person was really angry!") and even if they do recall them, a lot of the time they will not understand the underlying functions that allow this to happen (and trust me when I say trying to draw those things without understanding them is a ridiculous pain in the ass in comparison to when you're taught why, even if people who have mastered it don't have to think about it anymore because they're just too used to it by now) |
However, he never said that. It's a very common logical fallacy what you're claiming (fallacy of the inverse). It's important to know that A therefore B does not allow not A therefore not B as an extension of the argument.
The basis of that statement is:
A, then B
Not A, therefore not B
That's a confusing sentence (since logical terms tend to clog up very quickly), so let's look at it this way. Wikipedia listed a fairly easy example:
If it rains, then the grass gets wet. [A, then B]
It is not raining. [Not A]
Therefore, the grass is not wet. [then not B]
From this example, A is obviously "rain", and B is "wet grass". This is the exact same type of logic applied in the above...the logic you use is A is equal to "if you are not seeing people", and B is "you draw poorly". The inverse of the logic (the third line) does not hold as logically an extension of Miyazaki's argument.
In more practical terms, what we can say is that he believes quality animation cannot be done by having people who don't observe others...but observing others might not be the only factor in being a good artist. And given the absolute absurd end of that, it's almost impossible to believe that he believes its the only factor.
| QUOTE (Tenebrae Candidae @ Jan 31 2014, 11:19 AM) |
| 2:It's usually not that worth it to even care about keeping realistic nuances when animating (and there's even less with the low pay they tend to get) because lots of people don't care much in the first place (and when it gets bad enough, we get to make fun of it on the internet) I personally never cared much for the animation quality difference in Hayao Miyazaki's works even if it's supreme over the others. |
We have to consider who we're talking about though; Miyazaki is probably one of the most old school artistically inclined directors bar none. If memory serves, he stuck with hand drawn artwork far into the era of computer animation.
To be honest, I'm not the biggest into caring about animation. However, I can appreciate excellent artwork and I do find myself kind of not caring as much in recent days. What this may be an extension of is Miyazaki's dislike of the moe-character art form. While he initially backed it, he has gone record for saying it's more akin to lolicon these days. I mean, I get where he's coming from. Moe characters are driving more and more towards a pseudo-sexual design in their intent. The intimate desire to have a protective relationship with the character starts treading eerily towards this line...and you probably know where Miyazaki stood on that aspect long before this comment.
On that note though, I would suggest that most directors probably do not appreciate their art being made fun of. Remember, these are guys who probably could earn better money doing something else. They're making stuff they love. Didn't the Gurren Lagann team fire their director after a hideous art episode?
| QUOTE (Tenebrae Candidae @ Jan 31 2014, 11:19 AM) |
| and anyone that's watched Neon Genesis Evangelion and followed it for even a little while probably heard what the writer of that was dealing with. |
Just going to highlight this one in specific - Anno initially despised the treatment of his characters. He and Miyazaki have long stood in the same corner on this shift (though I'd argue Anno is perfectly fine accepting it as long as the money is insane). I've seen many speculate (and agree with the argument that) the infamous hospital scene in End of Evangelion was written as a "screw you" to all the fans who sexualized Asuka. To be honest though, Anno kind of hated everything about the otaku culture at the time and it's pretty obvious in his work that he was intending to reflect how creepy it all was...then missed the mark horribly.
He eventually did seem to get over it though. Rebuild is kind of how it looks when he's not pissed off at everyone.
| QUOTE (Tenebrae Candidae @ Jan 31 2014, 11:19 AM) |
| But then, the writers of live action things and books and other things also don't really write that much closer to human nature plenty of the time, so it's really more of a matter of either how much they care about details or not I guess. |
To a degree yes and to a degree no.
I think where he's looking is the overall trend over decades upon decades. Remember that he's a veteran director and akin in experience very much to Spielberg in experience. The trend isn't likely something he's tried to mention as over the last decade. Art has shifted there, but less so than if you look over how the animation trends have changed over 20 or even 30 years.
| QUOTE (Tenebrae Candidae @ Jan 31 2014, 11:19 AM) |
| However, even without the use of realism/keeping close to reality, plenty of shows reached commercial success even to people that aren't normally into anime. |
Commercial success does not equal artistic success. The two are often very separate. The biggest money makers will typically follow the lowest common values. I mean, how else did Grown Ups get a SEQUEL, let alone green lit?
Money drives the business and, ultimately, what sells right now is covert sexualization. I've generated discussion on this before and the conclusion I've reached is that moe-character shows (which I suspect Mikazaki is kind of attacking in the same breath) are stable; they generate money...not the highest, but they're safe returns. By comparison, the other shows are often called
| QUOTE (Tenebrae Candidae @ Jan 31 2014, 11:19 AM) |
| Also I have an issue with how you speak of...whatever the main character of that not popular anime was called (it seems I can't even remember it when I had read her name like 5 minutes ago) having the traits of the classical antihero. I think there's a big difference between an anti-hero with a lot of problematic traits that are often things others deride for being traits of weakness, and a total loser who's just disgusting. (I also can't understand why so many people like that show for anything other than the comedy purpose of watching such a person fail at life either, though.) |
Fair enough...but I think the point stands to reason that the show is ultimately portraying the a lifestyle the director enjoys in a negative, inclusive manner in which only the inclusive fans will understand or enjoy. And this is the scary part. I mean, I enjoy some shows like this (anybody who puts up with me on this forum knows my love of Community as the live action equivalent of inside jokes
), but when your whole area is heading this direction, you've go problems.
