I'm Back (but not really)
Dio Soryu
I have been struggling for some time with a question and, it seems, I'm not the only one. Or, perhaps I am, since I seem to be the only person struggling with it. Everyone seems to have decided upon their answer, already but I've not found their arguments particularly convincing.
I find this troubling, because the gut-level dismissal of the question prevents people from examining the larger scope and context the question is asked in.
Is RWBY Anime?
In terms of strict definition, it is not. Anime is the Japanese word for 'Animation' and, at least here in the West, that term is specific to animation originating in Japan. However, proponents of this argument might be surprised to learn that, if you live in Japan, RWBY is indeed 'Anime'; as is The Simpsons, The Flintstones and Family Guy. That's just their word for it.
Still, that definition isn't satisfying to me and nor will it be satisfying to most of my fellow fans of Anime. When I think of 'Anime', I have a particular style of art and set of tropes in my mind, yet I cannot say I find the Western definition satisfying either and for very much the same reason.
If, in hypothetical example, an episode of the Simpsons happened to be outsourced to a Japanese studio, does it then become 'Anime'?
Another argument I have heard frequently voiced is that it is not Anime because the artistic style is somewhat different and/or because of the use of CGI. These are both very provably flawed arguments, however. Most Anime is CGI heavy and very little is actually drawn by hand, anymore, which is a very good thing as it's meant an explosion of new Anime being produced because it's become much less labor intensive. As for artistic style, I'm not sure one can truly make that argument. I would certainly say that RWBY looks a lot more 'like anime' than, for example, Panty and Stocking.
I believe the problem we have reached, here, is that the definition of the word is wrong or, more precisely, it is no longer meaningful or useful and, when we take a look at the development of the industry, the becomes more and more apparent. A lot of what we call 'Anime' is not actually made in Japan, anymore, as much of it has been outsourced to Korea and China.
Complicating this further, a vast number of our own Western-style cartoons have also been outsourced to Korea. The Korean studio AKOM, for example, is responsible for episodes or entire seasons of Animaniacs, Earthworm Jim, My Little Pony (the original), Tiny Toons and a great number of others. Are we then to correctly refer to this as 'Korean Anime'? If not, what differentiates them from 'Anime', outsourced from Japan, according to the Western definition?
The only reasonable conclusion I believe a person can draw is that the word is wrong and, as much as it causes people to take up their torches and pitch forks when people say that, it does happen. Language is a living and evolving thing and cannot be stifled for no better reason than pure orthodoxy.
It is right and good that we should have agreed upon definitions, but there is no reason we cannot agree a word to mean something else when the previous agreement no longer makes any sort of rational sense. It was a word that, in the first place, we adapted and have defined to mean something it did not originally and, amazingly, society didn't crumble and we were all able to understand what each other have been talking about.
And so, it is time that we accept that Anime is not a geographic descriptor, but an artistic style with many interpretations.
Now, with all that said,
Nice to see all of you, again.
Don't ask me to do anything.
Love,
Comments
Pole
this question kept me up nights too
i say it is
RWBY was amazing.
Is RWBY anime?
No. It's not. It's a testament to how well westerners can do that sort of style, but it's not.
That said, it's worth noting, that to Japan, anime is just the word for animation. Japanese refer to anything animated (including The Simpsons, My Little Pony, and yes, RWBY) as anime. The idea that anime is something that is different and uniquely Japanese is a western construct.
With that said, I still find the term useful to delineate a certain form of entertainment from another, even if the lines get blurry at times.
(Oh, here's a fun one, is that episode of Adventure Time directed by famed anime director Yuasa Masaaki anime? Why or why not?)
Also, this, which I find is a solid definition: http://wiki.anidb.info/w/FAQ:Anime
"Are animated, professionally produced, feature films created by a Korean/Chinese company for the Korean/Chinese market allowed? Generally, yes."
Right, which is why I'm saying this definition doesn't make sense. It's a geographic distinction that fails to meet its own standard of being a geographic distinction.
The argument seems to be that it's a geographic distinction, and an artistic distinction, in whichever way means 'White People didn't make it'.
It probably is not, since my argument is that Anime is defined by both artistic sensibilities and use of tropes, but I didn't see it so I really can't comment for certain either way.
I'm a bit confused by the rest of your comment, though? I brought all those points up in the article.
Yeah, I'm half-asleep, and I skimmed it and missed that. I realized it in-between my first comment and my second, but I kind of went, "Oh well."
Anyway, as my other link mentions, I think it's a matter of both the origin and the original target audience. RWBY is cool, but it's not anime.
Either way though, at least talking about RWBY in the context of anime is a lot more appropriate than, say, derailing an anime thread with talk of The Legend of Korra...
I can certainly understand why they would use that definition. I can't imagine a database site would find it useful to put itself at the center of the question. For their purposes, it's easier to use the arbitrary differentiation. However, I do not think it serves our purposes to constrain ourselves to an arbitrary rule created for the simplicity of a filing cabinet.
Their definition makes sense for them, but I don't think that means it makes sense.