Ask John: Why Do Some Fans Think of Anime as an Art Style Instead of Japanese Animation?

Question:
Why do people believe that anime is just a style of animation or storytelling? People call shows that are anime-influenced “anime.” Or because a show incorporates “the Japanese style of cartoon storytelling/animation,” it’s anime. You see this a lot with manga these days; if it looks and is structured like manga, then it gets labeled as “manga” and people are none the wiser about it. Is this action justified? Is it ok?

Answer:
With only occasional exceptions, I’ve personally always believed that anime is Japanese animation- animation which originates in Japan and represents the native artistic influences and personalities of Japanese artists. I think that a lifetime spent immersed in Japanese culture naturally influences Japanese artists, and those influences consciously and unconsciously affect and appear in Japanese art. A skilled Japanese artist may be able to draw American style art, but it won’t be genuinely American. Likewise a talented American artist may be able to create art that’s looks indistinguishable from native Japanese art, but it’s still not authentic Japanese art. These distinctions aren’t racist or discriminatory; they’re simply facts.

The definition of “anime” in America has been, in my opinion, misunderstood and misappropriated through ignorance, deliberation, and purposeful intent. By ignorance I mean a compromise of the definition of anime engendered by observers that don’t understand exactly what anime is. By deliberation I mean knowledgeable fans who consciously subvert the meaning of the word “anime” to satisfy their own ego. And by purposeful intent I refer to American corporations that have co-opted the term “anime” as a commercial buzz word.

Americans that don’t have an intimate knowledge of anime presume that anime consists of sex, violence, giant robots, big eyes, wild hair, and collecting either cards or monsters. These casual observers aren’t conscious of cultural nuances in anime that make Japanese animation unique. They’re also probably not very concerned with recognizing the cultural origins of particular art. American animation including Megas XLR, Powerpuff Girls, Boondocks, Samurai Jack, Hi Hi Puffy Amiyumi, and Teen Titans may be influenced by Japanese animation, to differing degrees, but they’re not anime because they have uniquely American attitudes and themes, their pacing, editing, coloring, writing, and music are all influenced by American culture and perspectives. Average, mainstream Americans simply lump all of these shows together with Dragonball and Pokemon because they all superficially look similar.

Sometimes knowledgeable anime fans make the same argument because doing so fulfills their own sense of satisfaction or desire. Frequently American anime fans argue that the word “anime” is simply an abbreviation for “animation” in Japan; therefore, since average Japanese citizens refer to both Cowboy Bebop and Bugs Bunny as “anime,” Americans should do the same. This is a counterproductive principle, though, because such a generalization obscures appreciation and discussion of animation instead of serving rational discussion. I don’t see analytical or practical value in arguing that Snow White and Samurai Champloo are both “anime.” The stylistic and cultural differences between Saiyuki and Snoopy are too significant to make calling them the same thing useful. I suspect that many American fans are so fascinated by contemporary Japanese art that they’re disappointed and frustrated over being excluded from the creation of Japanese art. Knowingly compromising the distinction between Japanese and American art allows for a sense of personal inclusion and satisfaction. Instead of being eager to create their own, unique, original art which may be influenced by Japanese styles, many American artists seem determined to create Japanese art, even though they’re not Japanese and don’t have a lifetime of native Japanese life experience. The fact that an art isn’t Japanese, isn’t “anime,” and isn’t “manga,” doesn’t mean that it’s inferior. In fact, there are countless consumers who would argue that manga and anime art styles are inferior to original American comic and animation styles. But there seem to be a large number of American fans and aspiring artists who are more concerned with how art is labeled and perceived than the quality and integrity of the art itself.

Finally, numerous American corporations have intentionally subverted the definitions of “anime” and “manga” as a deliberate commercial maneuver. AD Vision has referred to its American/Korean animated productions as “anime,” even though there’s nothing Japanese about them. TOKYOPOP editor Jeremy Ross has publicly defined manga as not Japanese comics but rather, “a real state of mind, a way of thinking about creating.” Since manga and anime have become trendy in America, certain businesses have become eager to ride the coattails of this profitable trend. This marketing tactic has reached such a fever pitch that Canadian publisher eXtasy Books has announced a line of homosexual erotic novels in the style of yaoi manga. I personally can’t envision exactly how English language prose novels can be similar to Japanese comics. Original English language gay erotica created and published in Canada is Canadian gay erotica; not Japanese yaoi manga. These English language novels may be influenced by themes and characteristics of Japanese art, but formally classifying them as “Manga style” is oxymoronic. Illustrated comics are not the same thing as prose; something Canadian is not Japanese. Giving these Canadian novels Japanese style cover illustrations and referring to them as “yaoi” instead of “gay” or “homosexual” is specifically calculated to attract the attention of manga and anime fans. But this tactic also further confuses the rational and logical distinctions between what is and isn’t Japanese art. It may seem trivial to stress a strict delineation between anime and manga and things that are not anime and manga, but there’s simply no reason to mix the two.

The terms “anime” and “manga” are useful because they identify specific types of art. These terms loose their meaning and function when their characteristics are unjustifiably broadened. When I use the term “anime,” a reader understands that I’m referring to a specific type of animation. The term “anime” isn’t very useful if, when I use the term “anime,” a reader may think I’m referring to anything from Mickey Mouse to Urotsukidoji. Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony and Ice-T’s “Cop Killer” may both be music, but Beethoven’s Ninth is not rap, and “Cop Killer” is not classical. Likewise, American animation and Japanese animation are both animation, but only one of the two is anime. I respect and appreciate art, therefore I encourage the accurate and appropriate classification of art in order to propagate effective, useful critical analysis. I staunchly oppose the compromise and watering-down of the definitions of “anime” and “manga.” These definitions are losing their precision and effectiveness in the English language partly because the uninformed American mainstream is making broad, unfounded generalizations about anime and manga, and because both fans and commercial entities are intentionally subverting the definitions of anime and manga for personal gain.