Black Cat said:
If it's a matter of interpretation, as you say, then whether you find one style mature or immature is unimportant to an argument, given it's no argument, just a declaration of taste, which wasn't really on topic when seen in the context of Mirror-Kun's arguments
Wrong. An element of subjectivity does not automatically cancel out an element of objectivity (Objectivity here is limited to empirical things for the sake of this discussion, forget philosophy). Maturity is not something pulled out of nowhere, and it certainly isn't a term invented by some monocled Englishman to disparage the interests of common folk. It has a basis in human (and animal) physiology, and it serves a very important developmental purpose. Maturity as a psychological concept can be seen in the most primitive sense in the way children (see: immature humans) interpret information, and the way simplified symbolism including exaggeration and caricature are processed by children. Children don't behave this way because we patronise and indoctrinate them. They do it because it is a survival mechanism to aid in learning.
If you don't understand that, and you want a crash course on it then go watch some children programs and observe the psychology at work. You will see mature psychology at work in a context of the most basic and immature artistic styles.
If you come and try to argue things from a subjective point and using subjective examples then you will get subjective answers.
I wouldn't expect you to give anything other than subjective answers obviously. I am fine with that so long as you understand the topic, but I don't think you do understand.
Also, in which way does Warhammer or Ravenloft art styles become an effective context for the presentation of mature themes while anime isn't?
I didn't say anime art was completely unable to present mature themes. The key here is "themes of a variety confluent with that artistic style". If you try to present themes relating to war and starvation with pokemon, unless you are trying to make some satirical remark (which IMO would still be inferior), then it is typically going to look ridiculous, and lose its effect, specifically the mature portrayal of a topic which requires a mature mentality to properly understand. If you use the Ravenloft artistic style to show a campsite full of poor, barely-alive desert folk in sore need of water, then it will look appropriately harsh and serious. Anime can show mature perspectives on certain things, but it will almost always be inferior to an artistic style specifically designed to be mature,
which anime is most certainly not.
If you want to argue that anime isn't based on and developed from what was initially a childish and/or immature style, and that it doesn't carry some of that stylistic portrayal even in more mature productions (
as a specific case of trying to be loyal to the artistic style), then you lack the core understanding, and we have nothing to discuss here.
Again, you are saying one style is, in your interpretation, able to be mature and the other, in your interpretation, isn't, but you are interpreting it so because of something. So show us those evidences that make it so to your eyes, so we can answer with counter evidence, if present, of those styles you deem unable actually exploring mature themes in ways deeper than those you give, or not.
My interpretations would be based primarily on classical symbolism, which itself is something developed through human psychology including survival instincts, wisdom, and indeed, sometimes simply taste. To deny that taste can't be 100% separated would be incredibly naive. I also know I have a much better judgement and instinct than you do, as evidenced by this discussion. Disagree all you want.
Also, if intepretation is, as you say, subjective, how can people be better at interpretation than others?
An element of subjectivity does not automatically cancel out an element of objectivity. In this case perception is playing some role on the objective side. It is the person's ability to notice and identify different sensory elements that gives their interpretation the basis on which to function. If you can't see these things as they are empirically presented, then you are inherently inferior at interpretation.
It is the same as someone who can't see colour or long distances. If you can't see those things and the person next to you can, you are inherently worse at observing the world around in those ways than he is, whether you like to admit it or not. The chances are, that inferiority is going to result in a weaker interpretation of the world around you.
It is a very simple idea.
If some do it better than others then there's something objective to reach, in there, and therefore it is possible to quantify what there is and what there isn't to see how much is objectively there to understand or not. So make up your mind, is style something subjective, and thus only how you interpret it matters, or it has an objective meaning against which the intepretation of each individual can be compared to see whether it is better or worse than any other's?
Yes it is often very quantifiable. As I explained. Unfortunately for you, my points do not contradict one another as you want them to.
The biggest problem with you is that you take it personally that your favourite styles are seen as less mature or even immature, and then you try to get intellectual about and ignore your own instinct just to feel better about yourself on the matter.
The fact that you would immediately jump on Warhammer (which I will admit is overall less mature than Ravenloft, but certainly mature in certain ways) as being clearly immature shows how weak your attempt at objectivity is. You want to try to be counterculture in your analysis, but all it does is make you look pathetically biased.
Are we going to sit here and pretend that the artists were not aiming for a certain thing when they came up with the various artistic styles? Most of the artists responsible for the things being discussed (including even the anime) I am quite sure are skilled and experienced and are quite aware of the styles they used, and the way people are likely to interpret them, including the apparent level of maturity in their art.
You know it is quite okay to be seen by other people as having less mature tastes in things? You sound like one of those die-hard fans of a particular author who argue in the most academic and scientific way about the authors creations in the face of any kind of criticism, going so far as to build a whole web of internal logic to defend the content/author, and then the author comes along and gets asked a question about it and hes like "What?? Oh no, I didn't even think about those details! I just put that into the book because it seemed cool at the time!".
Such a response is hiding an unsophisticated approach to design, but not so much as it is hiding a very elementary understanding of style and symbolism.
. Spoken like a true Bioware fan.
