Mangaka or MANGAKA? Artist or ARTIST?

I've recently been reading a book called Adult Manga which came out in 2000, which deals with various aspect of the world of manga during the 90s, including the otaku community and issues on censorship during that time.

One chapter is titled "Manga Editors and Unusable Artists," and it talks about the increasingly creative roles that editors were taking during the 90s. On the topic of "unusable artists," the chapter recounts various editors lamenting the situation that artists were in at the time. One mentioned that with manga becoming so commonplace, they had to take risks picking artists who were willing to be more experimental, but often times it seemed the artists didn't have the enthusiasm to try something new. Another editor talks about how the current generation of manga artists aren't really manga artists. He compares the previous generation of mangaka, and how they consisted of people who lived in and addressed issues of their time, with mangaka of today, who often seem completely disconnected from reality. In other words, they were just people who grew up just reading manga (a topic I discussed in a previous post). This same editor basically says that too many of the artists only know how to draw cute girls. The book then goes on to mention one particular artist who seemed so far removed from the public that he had to ask his editor for relevant story topics.

I found this to be extremely relevant to my own situation, as I am both an artist and an otaku, and I know how easy it is to fall into the trap of just wanting to draw cute girls and just ignoring the real world and sticking with anime and manga. For me, it is a struggle to appeal to others and to express myself, as often times the art in which I am most invested is not the most aesthetically pleasing, at least in terms of moe qualities and the like. Reading the chapter on unusable artists has refocused my attention, and I realize that I must at least take the occasional look into the real world before I can progress artistically. I also need to improve my ability to draw cute girls as well, but the former must come before the latter if I dare to try and make a difference with my art.

That said, I'm still an otaku and I'll still be making incredibly dorkish posts just like this.

Thrice-Removed from Reality: Anime in the Current Age

The anime we see today is the product of a generation which grew up watching anime produced by people who grew up reading manga. We are twice removed from reality.

Hayao Miyazaki has lamented before that people spend too much time watching anime, stating that if you have time to watch Totoro 100 times, that time should have been spent actually being in nature. Similarly in the field of video games, Shigeru Miyamoto is well known for taking inspiration from various times in his life in making some of his classics. The Legend of Zelda is based on Miyamoto's exploration of the caves and forests around his childhood home, and Pikmin is based upon his gardening in his current adult life. Both men have produced great works, and both emphasize that one should not be too disconnected from reality.

At the same time, however, much of the progress in the history of the arts has been in the form of response to previous works. Impressionism led to Post-Impressionism led to Cubism and so on and so forth. There is nothing necessarily wrong with making art in response to art, and thusly there is nothing necessarily wrong with making anime in response to anime. If anime and manga are such a part of Japan's culture and increasingly world culture, then doesn't it too become a part of reality?

What is perhaps most interesting to me then, are the works which exist in the world of otaku but manage to push the content back into reality. Genshiken is probably my favorite example of this. Genshiken is initially devoted to introducing the reader to the world of otaku. Once the reader is firmly entrenched in the trappings of otakudom however, the series changes to being about pushing otaku into the real world, as time passes, graduations occur, and the characters have to confront their relationships with others. Moe itself, I think, has origins in subtly nudging otaku towards reality, with the complex emotions brought on by games such as Kanon and Air.

The problem, as I see it, is that while much of the anime made today is a reaction to anime made in the past, it often does not any sort of concerted effort to look deeply into the anime of the past. References are made, homage is given, but criticism is lacking. Not every title is like this, and even among the ones that do fall into this category, you will find many shows that I am fond of. If an anime is going to be twice or even thrice-removed from reality however, it does no good for the viewer or the creator to be ignorant of this.

Anime and Manga without Characters: A Thought Exercise

First, take an anime. It can be anything.

Now, here's the stipulation: Remove all the characters.

Too far?

Okay, try this. Remove all visual evidence of the characters. Have them off-screen at all times. Get rid of all photographs or visual indicators as to their actual appearance.

Oh, and just to be safe, have the language dubbed into let's say...Latin.

Can you still call it "anime?"


What I'm trying to promote here with this little exercise is getting you to think about to what extent we define the "anime" style based on the characters, most likely human or humanoid characters. I know that the concept of "anime-style" visuals is in itself a shaky topic, and that there is a ton of variety already. However, at this point I don't want to address the notion of putting anime characters in a western story, or putting western animation characters into an anime and seeing what happens. I'm saving that for another day, perhaps.

Anime and manga fans, myself included, frequently talk about how there's more to the stuff than just big eyes, small mouths, the stereotypical fare. Tokyopop, in its efforts to distinguish its Rising Stars of Manga books, lists a number of literary devices and visual cues such as certain types of panel layouts. Scott McCloud in his "Comics" series of informational comic books says something similar.

It's easy to say all this, but when I actually try my above exercise, removing all visual character evidence from an anime, I'm not sure what to think. Sure we can say that even if you don't see them, there are certain aspects of anime that stand out, such as slow-paced slice-of-life shows, but that doesn't apply to every work we see.

Here's another one: A number of light novels written, Suzumiya Haruhi probably being the most famous at this point, are displayed with anime-style characters on their covers and in the illustrations in between. They are clearly meant to give the reader the impression that the characters are to be thought of as existing in that style.

Now remove those illustrations. Pretend they never existed.

Do you still see them as anime characters?

I believe, in the case of something like Haruhi, that it remains, based particularly on the character types. The tsundere character type that is Haruhi is tied to anime as a whole. I have to admit though, that I'm not sure how effectively I can pretend those visual never existed. It's not easy, I know that.

There's also the fact that I am an anime fan. I wonder how this work with someone who wasn't as involved and interested in anime as I am. Maybe I'll try it out with someone normal.

This brings up another question, though. If indeed there are certain factors, beyond visuals, which distinguish anime and manga, is this a limitation on their storytelling abilities?