I had a long comment worked out, but it looked like intellectual self-indulgence.
In short, I'm not sure if I even pay attention to that distinction when I write about some medium. I know that doing it that way can be a little dangerous and confusing (I've almost got the latter down pat), but I can't really leave one out, no matter how hard I should try. I guess my approach is something like this: "Here it is in full understanding; have at it."
Last edited by Pleiades Rising at 6:12:33 PM EST on December 11, 2009.
I want to say that, with art, you can't separate emotion and intellect. If it lacks one or the other, it isn't art.
I think I can agree with that. Your point about the limitations of each medium is certainly true as well -- I'd think about, say, Final Fantasy VII's plot a hell of a lot differently than I would Catch-22, that's for sure.
With the whole entertainment thing, I think I can explain it better by saying I see it as one part of the whole, or the top layer of the package -- all the meaty stuff is underneath, but I still like that initial layer to be enticing. I'll be entertained by Julius Caesar or Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man in a different way than Star Wars, but it is entertainment nonetheless. Hopefully my previously crappy explanation makes sense now. :P
But I admit even that is an imperfect view, which loops back to your point about critical evaluation differing across mediums. I think I can approach some things with the same core values, but they really are different beasts across the board with like a bajillion different exceptions everywhere.
EDIT: I'll also readily admit this thought process reveals my bias against poetry -- I didn't really take it into account at all while writing this. (My sister frowns at me all the time because I don't read much poetry. :P)
Last edited by Shinmaru at 7:50:43 PM EST on December 10, 2009.
I want to say that, with art, you can't separate emotion and intellect. If it lacks one or the other, it isn't art.
The question about evaluating fiction is difficult, primarily because there are so many venues through which we can access fiction. It sounds like you're discussing fiction in terms of movies rather than in terms of literature or visual art or music, etc. Each genre has certain limitations and certain aims--you can't evaluate fiction in a movie the way you'd evaluate fiction in a novel. Movies, for instance, are more concerned with entertainment value than other art forms. So when you said you think fiction should be entertainment first and everything else second, I twitched a little, because I tend to think of fiction in terms of literature (creative writing major that I am), and in my opinion that is absolutely not the case--in regards to lit. With movies? Maybe that's more appropriate.
Vagrant AI (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 12/10/09 | Reply
Hmmm, where to begin, eh?
Well, I suppose I'm quite like you when it comes to my opinion on various visual media; part of it is emotional and part is intellectual. I value when a piece of work has some sort of thought or "smartness" behind it (even if it's not explicitly apparent; maybe compare Ghost in the Shell to Gurren Lagann for that). I tend to prefer anime and video games that sit somewhere in the middle of that spectrum as well.
Of course, there are exceptions. I would say The Vision of Escaflowne is definitely more reliant on emotions; if you think about the show too much, your brain starts to go, "Buh?!"
But if you look at my favorite series, .hack, I think it has a good mix of intellect and emotion. Despite all the wtf moments that happen in .hack that you'd think could only happen in fiction, the series still tries to explain itself realistically (at least most of the time). As you veer towards R:2 and into R:X, that sense of realism gets kinda lost, but it's still there.
EDIT: And another point I want to make is, most people (well, at least I think most) live in a balance of using emotional and intellectual responses to other things. Of course it varies (and probably moreso towards the emotional side), but it makes sense then for people to respond the same way to anime, games, movies, etc.
Last edited by Miss Anonymous at 5:12:03 PM EST on December 10, 2009.
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 12/11/09 | Reply
I had a long comment worked out, but it looked like intellectual self-indulgence.
In short, I'm not sure if I even pay attention to that distinction when I write about some medium. I know that doing it that way can be a little dangerous and confusing (I've almost got the latter down pat), but I can't really leave one out, no matter how hard I should try. I guess my approach is something like this: "Here it is in full understanding; have at it."
Last edited by Pleiades Rising at 6:12:33 PM EST on December 11, 2009.
Ducky
Imaginary Duck (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 12/11/09 | Reply
@Shinmaru:
...with like a bajillion different exceptions everywhere.
Isn't life nifty that way?
Shinmaru
Baron of Terribad (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 12/10/09 | Reply
@Ducky:
I want to say that, with art, you can't separate emotion and intellect. If it lacks one or the other, it isn't art.
I think I can agree with that. Your point about the limitations of each medium is certainly true as well -- I'd think about, say, Final Fantasy VII's plot a hell of a lot differently than I would Catch-22, that's for sure.
With the whole entertainment thing, I think I can explain it better by saying I see it as one part of the whole, or the top layer of the package -- all the meaty stuff is underneath, but I still like that initial layer to be enticing. I'll be entertained by Julius Caesar or Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man in a different way than Star Wars, but it is entertainment nonetheless. Hopefully my previously crappy explanation makes sense now. :P
But I admit even that is an imperfect view, which loops back to your point about critical evaluation differing across mediums. I think I can approach some things with the same core values, but they really are different beasts across the board with like a bajillion different exceptions everywhere.
EDIT: I'll also readily admit this thought process reveals my bias against poetry -- I didn't really take it into account at all while writing this. (My sister frowns at me all the time because I don't read much poetry. :P)
Last edited by Shinmaru at 7:50:43 PM EST on December 10, 2009.
Love thy Evangelion.
Ducky
Imaginary Duck (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 12/10/09 | Reply
I want to say that, with art, you can't separate emotion and intellect. If it lacks one or the other, it isn't art.
The question about evaluating fiction is difficult, primarily because there are so many venues through which we can access fiction. It sounds like you're discussing fiction in terms of movies rather than in terms of literature or visual art or music, etc. Each genre has certain limitations and certain aims--you can't evaluate fiction in a movie the way you'd evaluate fiction in a novel. Movies, for instance, are more concerned with entertainment value than other art forms. So when you said you think fiction should be entertainment first and everything else second, I twitched a little, because I tend to think of fiction in terms of literature (creative writing major that I am), and in my opinion that is absolutely not the case--in regards to lit. With movies? Maybe that's more appropriate.
Miss Anonymous
Vagrant AI (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 12/10/09 | Reply
Hmmm, where to begin, eh?
Well, I suppose I'm quite like you when it comes to my opinion on various visual media; part of it is emotional and part is intellectual. I value when a piece of work has some sort of thought or "smartness" behind it (even if it's not explicitly apparent; maybe compare Ghost in the Shell to Gurren Lagann for that). I tend to prefer anime and video games that sit somewhere in the middle of that spectrum as well.
Of course, there are exceptions. I would say The Vision of Escaflowne is definitely more reliant on emotions; if you think about the show too much, your brain starts to go, "Buh?!"
But if you look at my favorite series, .hack, I think it has a good mix of intellect and emotion. Despite all the wtf moments that happen in .hack that you'd think could only happen in fiction, the series still tries to explain itself realistically (at least most of the time). As you veer towards R:2 and into R:X, that sense of realism gets kinda lost, but it's still there.
EDIT: And another point I want to make is, most people (well, at least I think most) live in a balance of using emotional and intellectual responses to other things. Of course it varies (and probably moreso towards the emotional side), but it makes sense then for people to respond the same way to anime, games, movies, etc.
Last edited by Miss Anonymous at 5:12:03 PM EST on December 10, 2009.