Episode 213 – Us as Critics

Download

/ , / , , , , / 0 Comments

Here at the AAA we talk a lot.  Hey, that’s okay though right?  That’s what you came here for!  But, how do we talk?  Suggested by one of our listeners we really dive deep and analyze ourselves as critics.  Why do we like one anime and not another?  What do we look at when we consider anime?

 

I wanted to send you guys something to help guide your discussion here, since I suggested the topic. One of the things that I think is well-worth talking about is different approaches to critical theory and how you can apply those approaches to anime just as you can nearly every visual or text-based medium.

 

Ultimately, the goal is to really try and dig into what each of you view as your role as consumers and evaluators of anime, and what premises you work from when judging the artistic merits of a work.

 

Source Document:

http://www.cla.purdue.edu/blackmon/engl360k/critical.html#struct

 

Article breaks down 12 critical approaches to literature:

 

Anthro

 

As a Consumer:

  • Pre Reading the Link:

  • Chiaki: How I approach anime as a consumer is different than how I approach it as a reviewer.  As a consumer I am much more, expectedly, simple.  If something makes me happy, I want it, end of story.  If it makes me laugh, cry, and is something I want to watch again and again then I want to own it/merchandise of it.

  • Mitsugi: Tries to review from a consumer perspective.  If an anime doesn’t appeal to me personally, I generally will not give it a good score.  There are times when very serious anime clearly aren’t as enjoying as others because they are closer to art and aren’t meant to be entertainment.  (e.g. Grave of the Fireflies)  You know its art when you watch it but you may not really enjoy the movie.  Still a masterpiece.

    • I get turned off by things perceive as dumb or ill fitting in a story.  I may knock the show for containing such content but I’ll at least describe the problem in such a way that the listener can discern whether they may be interested.

  • Kram: In the simplest terms, I look for entertainment as a consumer. However, I am never able to fully turn off the “critic” inside me. The goals of the creator are never far from my mind when letting a piece of entertainment wash over me. So when I spot an inconsistency or creative misstep, it immediately affects my enjoyment of the piece, no matter how lowbrow the piece may be.

 

    • Primary Approach:

      • Chiaki: Reader-Response Criticism: Studies the interaction of reader with text, holding the text as incompleteuntil it is read. This critical approach can be, and often is, combined with other approaches (such as Psychoanalytical and Historical) but challenges the self-contained focus of New Criticism or the claim of meaninglessness embraced by Post-Structuralism.

        • I think this exemplifies me as a consumer because I like to look at how I relate to a show more than anything else when it regards my consumption habits.

      • Mitsugi: Structuralism –  Focuses on the elements within a work and does not focus on outside influences that may apply elsewhere (e.g. social or historical influences)

        • I tend to look at a work self-contained and heavily examine the narrative and quality of the writing without taking into account and outside influences that might have existed either prior or alongside a work.

      • Kram: New Criticism: I suppose if I’m looking for the most basic elements of entertainment in a work, it could be said that I am attempting to subscribe to no critical approach. This of course would be impossible for me, so as best as I can surmise, a new critical framework is my goal when consuming on “auto-pilot,” which is to say consumption for consumption’s sake (e.g. escapism/lazy Sunday viewing). Allowing the contents of the work itself to drive my enjoyment without regard for external context denotes this particular framework in my mind.

  • As an Evaluator:

    • Pre Reading the Link:  Pre-Reading the link and whatever it may say I generally have an approach to reviewing where I try to look at an anime and think about what it has to say.  Where its niche will be in the greater overall pool that is the medium and what lasting contributions it will give to the community.

    • Primary Approach:

      • New Criticism: Unlike biographical and historical approaches, a New Critic approach contends that literature need have little or no connection with the author’s intention, life, or social/historical situation.Everything needed to analyze the work is contained within the text. New Critics also tend to examine the physical qualities of the text in a “scientific matter” that examines language and literary conventions (e.g. rhyme, meter, alliteration, plot, point of view, etc.). It is similar, though not identical, to Structuralism in its emphasis on the text itself (see below).

      • What I like:

        • I think this approach is akin to me because I try to look solely at the animation itself.  While I think whatever the director was intending to do IS important I do not see it as the end-all for evaluating the anime.  You can intend to make a piece of shit, and make a piece of shit, just because you succeeded in doing that does not make it a good show.

        • I like to think of the best works as being “timeless” pieces.  Works that are not attached to one place, person, or point in time.  Therefore, focusing too much on the history surrounding the piece I think can distort its actual merit.

      • What I don’t like:

        • While I just said I like timelessness.  I also recognize that art isn’t created in a vacuum and to better understand a work you have to pay attention to the goals of the creator.

    • Kram: Reader-Response: Since my critical approach is so concerned with the goals of the creator and how well those goals are achieved, I must always be able to adapt my outlook to a variety of critical frameworks. In this way, I must respond to  content with an appropriately dynamic critical eye. To approach a piece like ANGEL’S EGG with a focus on Semiotics would render my analysis largely void of insight, since the absence of significant language and dialogue would provide little to criticize. Similarly, to decry the artistic merit of Osamu Tezuka’s early work due to the technological limitations of the time would be an exercise in ignorance of the Historicist critical framework. Looking at a few of Studio Ghibli’s works: In my mind, a film like THE WIND RISES benefits from a Biographical perspective, while KAGUYA-HIME NO MONOGATARI requires a Narratological analysis. PRINCESS MONONOKE and HOWL’S MOVING CASTLE can be viewed through different lenses of Social Criticism (Green Theory and Feminist Criticism, respectively), and so on. I pride myself on adaptability as a critic, so Reader-Response seems to fit my analytical methodology.

    • Secondary Approach:

      • Reader-Response Criticism: Studies the interaction of reader with text, holding the text as incomplete until it is read. This critical approach can be, and often is, combined with other approaches (such as Psychoanalytical and Historical) but challenges the self-contained focus of New Criticism or the claim of meaninglessness embraced by Post-Structuralism.

      • What I like:

        • While I realize it contradicts a bit my primary approach I also think how a work is received by the consumer is vastly important.  Even if someone is trying to say something if they cannot adiquetly convey their message then there is no point in what the message is.

        • I also think good works will have multiple levels of meaning for different consumers and these levels can only be understood after the work is “read”

      • What I don’t like:

        • Sometimes people are stupid, and their opinions are invalid 😀  No.. that’s harsh.  But I do think fantastic things can get flack becasue they weren’t designed to be mainstream and that needs to be considered.