Anime – a product of commercialism or art?

As much as anime fans love praising their favorite series for artistic values, many will still acknowledge that anime is, in the end, a commercial product that is precisely tailored to what fans want, and whose main goal is to increase ratings and merchandise sales…

Finding a precise definition of “art” that people will agree on is difficult. But those who are defined as “artists” are typically thought of as people who create for a reason other than profit and fame – they create to express themselves and to give organization and form to stories and ideas in their head. Art could thus be thought of as the “labor of love” works that such artists produce.

With this view of an artist, couldn’t it then be said that the original source of many anime, i.e, manga and light novels, be works of art? Putting anime aside for a moment, it’s hard to imagine that manga-ka and light novel authors created their series for the sake of money and fame over expression and creativity. Unless their works become major successes, manga-ka and authors are not known for ever becoming really rich and famous. Yet, despite the stress, deadlines, and the fact that there are probably easier and better paying jobs available, they continue to create chapters/volumes of their stories, sometimes for many years. We all know how detailed and complex manga stories can be, with their own unique terminology, background histories, and chronology of events. Manga-ka come up with these painstakingly detailed concepts without any guarantee that they’ll make a compensating profit from their work. Therefore, I would like to think that manga and light novel series have at least some grounds in the realm of art rather than commercialism.

But when the works of these passionate artists get turned into anime TV shows or movies, is the artistic value diminished for the sake of profit? The series goes from the labor of love of an individual artist to the property of a company/animation studio whose interest lies in promoting this series so that it will make a profit for them. From what I’ve heard, the original artists don’t have much say in what the anime companies do with their work.

Some anime adaptations, like Death Note, are extremely faithful, while others, like the latter half of the first Fullmetal Alchemist anime, take creative liberties completely different from the original source. However, as is often, but not always, the case, the anime companies usually try to remain faithful to the original story, characters, theme, and style of the manga or light novel being adapted. But do they do this for the sake of maintaining the artistic integrity of the original artist, or simply for the sake of profit that may come from pleasing fans of the original manga or light novels? I would like to think it’s a little bit of both, but the answer is definitely debatable.

There are a number of anime series and movies that are not adapted from the works of a manga-ka or light novel authors. Are they thus grounded solely in the realm of commercialism? Are anime titles credited to companies rather than individual artists not art, even though such series could have just as much stylistic, thematic, cinematographic, etc., values as an adapted series? But again, do anime creators make series this way for art’s sake or because a number of fans want them this way and it would thus be more profitable to them? Or a little of both perhaps?

I think that for all anime except for maybe the lowest of the low, obnoxiously cliche series, commercialism and artistic value exist together, with commercialism usually dominating, but the art factor is still present. For some relatively humble series like Mushishi, Nana, Haibane Renmei, and Kemono no Souja Erin, perhaps the sake of art is the more dominating factor. While for others, like K-ON!, Lucky Star, Naruto, and Evangelion, their intense merchandising and promoting indicates a desire to make big profit, even if their original creators made them firstly for artistic expression.

I intend to write a followup post on this topic next time so stay tuned.

No Comments… read them or add your own.

  1. Jan Suzukawa says:

    Your post touches on the old debate between “art” and “commerce.” I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive.

    I can think of two examples that prove this point in two different ways. First (and I am loathe to even bring up this anime, as you know I have issues with it), there’s Evangelion – an anime I personally find tedious in many ways (irritating whiny protagonist, too-artsy and deliberately-confusing-ending, and now – endless sequels/re-tellings of the same damn story). Evangelion is considered “art” – AND it is also a huge commercial success.

    The second example is Naruto – which is often derided for being derivative and for being “too commercially successful.” Regardless of how much Kishimoto had dollar or yen signs in his head when he concocted the story and characters in Naruto, the fact that it is such a huge commercial success proves that it touches many people on an emotionally resonant level. Just because something is wildly popular doesn’t mean it isn’t also art, IMO – it can actually mean that its creator has explored universal themes in a very effective way – which is, in my book – art.

    Didn’t mean to hijack your post with a book-length comment. ;) Obviously, your post has made me think(!).

  2. Jura says:

    I don’t really understand how it can’t be both. Even with profit, adaptations, and restrictions.

Leave a Comment

*