Forum - View topicI am an Anime Feminist. Ask Me Anything
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
Author | Message | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UltimateEye
Posts: 34 |
|
|||||||||||
To start with, I've read this: https://www.animefeminist.com/review-endro-episode-1/
In response, I ask, do you think eroticized fanservice can be subjective? I have this in mind when shows like Endro come along and drench viewers in cuteness along with midriff and/or cleavage-exposing costumes. I question whether somewhat revealing outfits like those of characters in that series are innocent and only salacious when viewed through an adult-oriented lens. I ask whether a child might see Endro and not be bothered or confused by the costume choices. .hack//SIGN is another anime which, unlike Endro, doesn't rely as much on the moe aesthetic, though it has the theme of a fantasy RPG world in common. I noticed that there are both male and female characters that don't wear a whole lot, in keeping with this fantasy theme. It seemed to me that fanservice and manservice in .hack was subjective to the extent that these scantily-clad characters had rich personalities and development, with less of an obvious focus on their appearances. Finally, I could entertain the thought that, in Endro, some of the costume choices might actually up the factor of innocent cuteness, and only appeal in an erotic sense to select audiences. Last edited by UltimateEye on Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:06 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
ninjamitsuki
![]() Posts: 615 Location: Anywhere (Thanks, technology) |
|
|||||||||||
Gintama is one of the most popular Jump series with the fujoshi crowd, and it's also one of the better Jump series when it comes to portraying female characters, IMO. You can still have a cast full of pretty boys with well-written, relevant, and likable female characters, and still have it be popular with the fujo/yumejo crowd. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
louis6578
![]() Posts: 1873 |
|
|||||||||||
Thank God someone said it. I genuinely thought that this statement "All Art is Political, All of it," was one of the most narrow-minded things I've seen a supposed intellectual say on the field of debating art. It's okay to interpret what you interpret, but the instant you insist that all art is universally a certain way, you've failed to understand art. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
all-tsun-and-no-dere
ANN Reviewer
Posts: 628 |
|
|||||||||||
Ah yes, insisting on the political nature of means I don't understand art. Neither does Toni Morrison:
Apparently, neither does George Orwell, who wrote a book of essays called "All Art is Propaganda". A Tasty Sub very neatly summed up the ways in which Psycho101's examples have politics embedded in them, and here's the introduction for a lesson plan specifically about the political nature of art:
(From http://arthistoryteachingresources.org/lessons/art-and-political-commitment/, though the lesson focuses on the fine arts over popular art) And from a site about introducing media literacy in the classroom:
(http://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy/general-information/digital-media-literacy-fundamentals/media-literacy-fundamentals) Just because art is political doesn't mean it's made with an agenda in mind, nor do you have to pick apart its politics or agree with it to enjoy it. I may have dropped Fables because I got tired of the undercurrent of social conservatism that runs through it, but I'll also rewatch 30 Rock even though some of the politics in it can be really regressive at times. You are free to disagree with me, but if you call my stance "narrow-minded", then I'm going to ahead and call yours anti-intellectual. Or maybe, you could learn something here. Last edited by all-tsun-and-no-dere on Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Redbeard 101
Oscar the Grouch
Forums Superstar ![]() Posts: 16961 |
|
|||||||||||
Ok, moderator time. Nobody is going to call the other anything rude. Unless you 2 want your posts removed. Expanding on that, louis you have a growing habit of being rude and condescending to those with differing opinions. It's a habit I suggest you stop. Express your disagreements in a respectful manner or don't post them at all. I would also advise you to not quote someone else, and then misrepresent them and their opinions to further those rude comments of your own.
Now let's move on. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
louis6578
![]() Posts: 1873 |
|
|||||||||||
My apologies for saying that the original poster didn't understand anything about art. I meant that it was a narrow-minded view to perceive every piece of art in existence as somehow political. Pardon me if it seemed like I was attacking an individual's character.
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
lossthief
ANN Reviewer
![]() Posts: 1440 |
|
|||||||||||
If I may ask, what exactly is it that you feel is narrowminded about the idea? At its foundation the concept is just that art is inherently political in some capacity or another because it's created by people, and people are inherently political as products of the various societal and communal systems we live and participate in. It's not an assertion on the quality or specific nature of a piece of art, but rather an acknowledgement that art is the result of human action. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
louis6578
![]() Posts: 1873 |
|
|||||||||||
I'm glad you brought this up. My issue is the implication that all art is trying to push an agenda about how society is/should be. In truth, I'd say that art about rebelling against an establishment or dealing with unreasonable superiors can be seen as political (One Piece, Rurouni Kenshin, Code Geass, and even Aggretsuko). However, she didn't say "all art where sociology is a focus." She said "All art." No exceptions. No wiggle room. This is implying that, say, something as innocent as a child's drawing of a stick figure or music without lyrics is political. Believe it or not, if the post was just a bit different, I'd accept it even if I disagreed. For example "All narratives are political" wouldn't exactly have the same level of push back from me. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
all-tsun-and-no-dere
ANN Reviewer
Posts: 628 |
|
|||||||||||
Summoning SailorTralfamadore to the thread to talk about the politics of instrumental music... But seriously, I’m glad you asked about the children’s art! I’m a media critic, not an art historian, so we were getting a little out of my depth. Luckily I’m also a preschool teacher, so that’s something I’m a little more qualified for. Here are some of the political implications of children’s art: Choice of materials - not all children have the same access to the same materials. Does their family have a lot of spare income to buy nice art supplies? Do they have the big crayola box with lots of colors, or a few broken roseart colors? Was it made in group care where they had to learn to share with other kids? Maybe they drew somewhere they’re not supposed to as an act of rebellion. Choice of subject matter- children, though imaginative, don’t tend to make things up out of whole cloth. What they choose to draw has a lot of social factors. If a kid is drawing their nanny over and over but never their parents, it says a lot about their familial relationships. The girls I work with are drawing a ton of unicorns these days, partly because of peer influence and partly because unicorns are on everything for little girls these days, but rarely on things meant for boys. In some religions, representational art is taboo. Why they’re making it - are they extrinsically or intrinsically motivated? Is it process- oriented or product- oriented? Chosen audience- are they drawing it for themselves, or a gift for someone else? If they’re drawing it for their own pleasure, they’ll choose whatever images suits them. But if they’re seeking adult approval, they might draw something they know adults like to see. As I stated before, “political” doesn’t mean “has an agenda”. It means it’s determined by the various social, economic, and cultural factors in our lives. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
SailorTralfamadore
![]() Posts: 499 Location: Keep Austin Weeb |
|
|||||||||||
I see I've been summoned! Yes, instrumental music can definitely be political. Sure, it's easier to notice the "message" when something has lyrics or a story to it (like an opera or musical) but composers write instrumental music that have stories behind them all the time. Some of them can have pretty explicitly political intent: Dmitri Shostakovich's symphonies are a good example of this. His 5th symphony was a response to Soviet censorship of his opera Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk District; his 7th symphony was a portrait of the siege of Leningrad by the Nazis during World War II; his 10th symphony was performed after the death of Stalin and dedicated as a tribute to him. It doesn't get much more political than that. And he's not alone, either; Beethoven's 3rd symphony was intended as a portrait of and tribute to Napoleon until he ripped up the dedication upon Napoleon crowning himself emperor.
But art being "political" isn't just a matter of the explicit intended message the work might have. Art is still always a creature of the time and place in which it was created, and so reflects the values of that time and place. Musical aesthetics can tell us something about what the society it's in values if we know how people at the time likely viewed certain musical gestures: some type of musical organization being viewed as "rational" vs. "emotional," what were seen as "masculine" or "feminine" gestures (look up "masculine" and "feminine" endings), the way race is coded into music via musical tropes associated with specific places or cultures, and so on. This is a big reason why as a musicologist, when I teach music history I put a lot of emphasis on my students understanding the historical context, including the political situation of the time and place. The complex organization of Bach's fugues make "more sense" if you understand the 18th century Enlightenment (a movement which led to the American, French, Haitian, etc. Revolutions) and how they prized that sort of "logic." The way his music was used in the church makes more sense if you understand the Lutheran Church's beliefs about congregational worship, and also how they differed from other Protestants that focused on that even more extensively -- and given how many wars were fought between Protestants and Catholics in Bach's time, that was deeply political. And of course, Bach as a man living in 18th century Germany adhered to a lot of the beliefs that were common to his time, and some were reflected in his music if you know where to look. So TL;DR: basically backing up Caitlin that when we say "all art is political" we are not saying "all art is made out of ideological motivations." But also, quite a lot of instrumental music is in fact ideological, and would have read that way to the people listening to that music at the time it was made, as well as the composers who created it. There are other ways to communicate your ideas beyond words. As I always say to my students, have you ever listened to Jimi Hendrix's instrumental version of the "Star-Spangled Banner" from Woodstock? He uses it to send a message that was pretty controversial at the time, and pretty easy for listeners to hear even now. How does he do that? (And of course, this all isn't even going into what Theodor Adorno and people like him would say about the "culture industry" and artistic products as consumer products furthering capitalism lol) |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
UltimateEye
Posts: 34 |
|
|||||||||||
Can eroticized fanservice be subjective, though?
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Errinundra
Moderator
![]() Posts: 6561 Location: Melbourne, Oz |
|
|||||||||||
And to emphasise how political instrumental music can be, I'm going to take issue with some of the things SailorTralfamadore said about the Shostakovich symphonies. At the time his 7th symphony was presented by the Soviet authorities and his western allies (the symphony was premiered while Leningrad - now St Petersburg - was under siege by the Nazis) as a portrait of the siege. Later, in his disputed memoirs, Shostakovich claimed the symphony was planned prior to the invasion and was actually about the Leningrad that "Stalin destroyed and Hitler merely finished off". I think calling the tenth symphony a 'tribute" is a major misrepresentation. Sure, it's about Stalin, but the tone ranges from sombre, to brutal - the savage second movement is sometimes described as a portrait of him - to almost hysterical. The skittish finale always seems to me to be Shostakovich capering about, singing to himself, "You're dead, and I'm not". (Stalin died two months before the symphony's premiere).
Volumes have been written about the political meaning of the fifth symphony. The Soviet authorities of the time hailed it as the composer's acknowledgement of and conformation to the ideology of socialist realism. The audience who attended the premiere wept openly during the third movement and gave it a 30 minute standing ovation. To them it portrayed the tragedy and terror they felt but were unable to express under normal circumstances. Optimism was an essential part of Soviet approved art. To some the closing bars are a glorification of the Soviet system. To others it is a brutal indictment. My point is, by disagreeing with SailorTralfmadore on something as seemingly straightforward as three instrumental symphonies, I'm supporting her basic thesis. (I suppose I should moderate myself now for going so off-topic). |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Redbeard 101
Oscar the Grouch
Forums Superstar ![]() Posts: 16961 |
|
|||||||||||
The title says ask her anything. There's instrumental music in anime. Both music and anime are considered art. The original question/difference in opinion stemmed from the idea that all art is political. Therefore it's tangentially linked. So no need to go flog yourself. A simple prayer to Satoshi Kon for guidance will suffice as penance. ![]() As for the actual main point brought up that all art is political, I understand what is being said but I still disagree to a point. I simply feel some things are exactly what they are at face value, without some hidden ideology or message behind them. Subconscious or not. Call me obtuse if you want. Perhaps I feel this way because I am grouchy and tired of every piece of media I consume being picked apart by people claiming there is some hidden meaning in every damn thing out there. A fun action movie can't just be a fun action movie anymore. A hobby kit can't just be a simple hobby kit. Etc. EVERYTHING it seems has to have some bloody hidden Illuminati message in it. I better consult Robert Langdon before enjoying anything at this point so he can decipher the hidden truth for me! Yes I am being sarcastic and facetious. You get my point though I trust. I just want to be a simple damn person and enjoy my simple damn movie or whatever. Is that too much to ask for? |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
SailorTralfamadore
![]() Posts: 499 Location: Keep Austin Weeb |
|
|||||||||||
@Errinundra: I did kind of give the Cliff's Notes version of the Shostakovich story, but for the record, I wasn't trying to suggest Shostakovich was a Stalinist. You're right about the Leningrad Symphony -- and in general that Stalin did a lot after the war to dismiss the city's role in it and to culturally and politically marginalize it in comparison to Moscow, and Shostakovich took issue with it to the extent he could. The extent to which the 10th symphony is intended as a tribute to him is debatable (though I've definitely heard musicologists who specialize in him more than I do characterize it as one), I more meant that it was performed as one. Shostakovich had his own opinions about the Soviet regime but had to do what he had to do to "play the game" as a composer in a totalitarian system that only saw art as useful to the extent it furthered its ideological aims... which means a lot of the different "political meanings" of his music contradict themselves. And of course, that scholars can continue to debate and discuss endlessly what he "really meant" and which of his memoirs are "more reliable" and so on and so forth.
@Psycho 101: I do get tired sometimes of the world of ideologically-motivated "hot takes" about every single piece of media, I'll give you that, and a lot of them really are stretches and really seem like cases where it feels like the person is doing it to show off their own interpretive muscles more than actually better understand the work in question. (I was just venting to a friend out there about some of the people who call Attack on Titan "pro-fascist" and how that's been wholesale, uncritically adopted by a lot of "fandom" corners of the Internet, when I think it's the opposite if anything.) But I think there's a difference between that and what Caitlin and I are talking about when we say "all art is political," which is really more about the way that we're all products of our times and places and can even unintentionally communicate ideas about that. An example I'd give is the tendency for a lot of children's media to make villains really flamboyant men or butch women, traits we culturally associate with gay and transgender people -- and often in films that focus on heterosexual romance. Are all those creators intentionally trying to show LGBT people as "villainous" and non-LGBT people as heroic? Probably not; a lot of them are just repeating what they see in other media like it. Heck, a lot of gay people, including myself, have a lot of fondness for those kinds of queer-coded villains. But it doesn't change that it comes off that way to a lot of people, and reflects the broader societal biases they live in... in a way that in 100 years might be just as shocking to viewers as racist caricatures or jokes about hitting women are in old movies for us today. A good distinction I saw made recently was in this video about the video game Cuphead and the discussion around its use of aesthetics and storylines from old 1930s cartoons that use troubling racialized imagery. The creator of the video does a good job explaining how gamers are off-base for responding by saying "they're saying Cuphead is racist garbage!" when really, people are just trying to start a conversation about what it means to be using that animation style without the bigoted parts of it, and if it's possible to show appreciation for it aesthetically without handwaving its more problematic elements. They're discussing, not condemning. (For the record, I think that criticism has merit but I also really like Cuphead, and largely because of its 1930s animation influences. I even have met and am Twitter pals with the game's composer. It's possible to take issue with specific elements of something, or even just find it "iffy," and still like the thing overall.) Last edited by SailorTralfamadore on Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:48 pm; edited 2 times in total |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Alan45
![]() ![]() Posts: 9931 Location: Virginia |
|
|||||||||||
@Psycho 101
Like you I understand what they are getting at and have similar objections. The problem with saying that all art is political is that it dilutes the meaning of "political" to essential meaninglessness. If you put all art on a spectrum of the overtly political to the almost apolitical you will find that the bottom third of the spectrum has so little politics as to be meaningless. Basically the fish doesn't notice the water it swims in until it goes away or becomes polluted. If an artwork is so aligned with the culture it was created in, it is the equivalent of clear water. Think of overt politics as pollution. You know, finding politics in a symphony from the Stalinist era. Is sort of a gimme. Stalin more or less demanded that art be political. What I would like to hear is someone explain the politics behind The Teddy bear's picnic or Love Potion Number Nine. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group