More on anime as commercialism or art

This is a followup of my previous post, “Anime – a product of commercialism or art?“…

To further illustrate the points I brought up in the other post, I’ll use a few anime images as examples:

The above image is a scan of one of the pages from the Bleach 2006 calendar. It could be said to have attributes related to art; the style in regards to the way the cracks in the background and the blood stain affect are expressed, as well as the detail in the actual drawing and coloring. Is it wrong to think of anime calendar images like this one as art, even though they are made to please fans and thus make a profit? If Tite Kubo, the creator of Bleach, had drawn all the calendar images himself (which he has for some calendars), would that make the artistic value of the item rise?

———-

This is one of the promotional images for Clannad After Story. I can’t think of any other way to describe the colors and overall feel of this picture as anything but pretty. However, there are many fans who think that shows like Clannad are just fodder for moe-obsessed otaku. That may be partially true, but looking at this and the many other gorgeous, detailed, vibrantly colored Clannad images that Kyoto Animation has released, it wouldn’t feel right calling them anything else but artwork, even if their purpose of making a profit is covered up by their pretty imagery.

———-

The above image is the cover of the second Pokemon movie art book. Everybody knows that the Pokemon games and anime have been one of the most successful international franchises ever. So, could official Pokemon pictures, even color-coordinated, dynamic, and relatively detailed images, be considered art? Or should books like this not be called “art books?” What if the pictures were drawn painstakingly by a single fan of Pokemon rather than by the official companies?

———-

Many anime, such as Wolf’s Rain above, have unique, pretty, and evocative art styles and designs, even without an original manga-ka or author behind them. The companies release art books, soundtrack CDs, and promotional images in magazines for these series. Is it for the sake of showing off the artistic value of these series, appealing to fans so they’ll buy the products, or as many of us think, a little of both?

———-

Like I mentioned in the previous post, everyone’s definition of what is and isn’t art varies. On the one end, we have the idea of the struggling artists who care more about expressing themselves in their usually ambiguous art, sometimes more than their own well being. And on the other hand, we have large companies, Disney for example, who create works that can be called art, but their purpose and background are different than those of the struggling artists. Perhaps to some people, there has to be an individual’s passion for creativity and expression behind the work in order for it to be considered art. In this case, individual works of art like those by artists and manga-ka would be acceptable, while those by companies such as Disney would not (but maybe anime or Disney fan art would be). And for some people, anything that gives form to thought, whether it’s a child’s doodles, a Pixar movie, or a Code Geass art book put together by Sunrise, is a kind of art.

In conclusion, I think most anime fans will agree that anime is a mix of artistic integrity and profit-seeking commercialism, often with one of the sides overshadowing the other depending on the anime. However, the debate about art, in anime and elsewhere, will go on.