The problem is that you are comparing shit quality anime to good (or not so shit) quality non-anime cartoons. If you want to compare them, the compare Disney to Studio Ghibli or Satoshi Kon films, not Disney Beauty and the Beast to Dragonball crap. There are tons of crap western cartoons (shit, just take a look at Cartoon network now)

You brought up inaccuracy, then argued there was no point to bringing it up.

I suggested there is often little point in carrying on about how something is depicted.

Color and value contrast make images more interesting. This is not especially subjective. This is an objective measure of art quality since the middle ages. It's basic composition, which is generally pretty objective as far as art quality goes.

Anybody who's been part of an art critique before knows "to each his own" is a flawed starting point for looking at art. There are tons of objective measures for judging the quality of art.[/quote]

A religious zealot believes scripture to determine what is moral on faith. You treat a process for evaluating art the same way. How do you, personally, benefit from art? What do you reflect on, and why? If you find that the quality of art is low, do you just dismiss it? Who does your thinking: you, or the criteria?

Read this, then research metacognition and empiricism. They have some relevance to this discussion.

The problem is that you are comparing shit quality anime to good (or not so shit) quality non-anime cartoons. If you want to compare them, the compare Disney to Studio Ghibli or Satoshi Kon films, not Disney Beauty and the Beast to Dragonball crap. There are tons of crap western cartoons (shit, just take a look at Cartoon network now)

It was naruto, but it's a fair point. Then again, it isn't totally inaccurate to compare mainstream to mainstream.

A religious zealot believes scripture to determine what is moral on faith. You treat a process for evaluating art the same way. How do you, personally, benefit from art? What do you reflect on, and why? If you find that the quality of art is low, do you just dismiss it? Who does your thinking: you, or the criteria?

Read this, then research metacognition and empiricism. They have some relevance to this discussion.[/quote]
what are you on about?

I'm trying to understand where objectivity comes in and why it is appropriate for it to do so.

"This cartoon is older and has more color, therefore it is better!"

It's better is why it's better. The fact that it's 50 years old suggests that there should have been sufficient time for the rest of the globe to realize that color and value contrast add visual interest, depth, and drama to visuals. It's not like these concepts are anything even that new.

[/quote]


There was a lot of colorful anime from that era. Even for stuff that was broadcast in black in white, anime from the 50's to 70's had a lot of contrast in their color palette. Look at Speed Racer, Getter Robo, Yatterman, etc. The question we have to ask is why color in a lot of anime became more washed out or subdued over the decades. Who knows, maybe it's like the "gray and brown" trend that affects so many AAA-budget video games that strive for realism in graphics.

I'm trying to understand where objectivity comes in and why it is appropriate for it to do so.

There are plenty of objective measures of art quality in both moving, non-moving, 2D, and 3D art. Cinematography and composition are both fields of study that apply objective measures to art in moving and static media respectively (composition applies to both though).

In an even more objective measure though, anime is generally worse quality because it is drawn mostly on 4s or moves a static picture instead of actually animating stuff.

There was a lot of colorful anime from that era. Even for stuff that was broadcast in black in white, anime from the 50's to 70's had a lot of contrast in their color palette. Look at Speed Racer, Getter Robo, Yatterman, etc. The question we have to ask is why color in a lot of anime became more washed out or subdued over the decades. Who knows, maybe it's like the "gray and brown" trend that affects so many AAA-budget video games that strive for realism in graphics.[/quote]
Fair point as I am not super versed on anime from the 50s-70s.

The thing is you are saying anime is 'worse' for this or 'worse' for that without taking into account the cultural differences between your own view point and the target market.

If you were someone who was brought up in a country where anime originated and thus had the cultural background to fully grasp the reason things are done in such a manner then you might well take the point of view that 'western' cartoons are 'worse' for the inverse of the reasons you give here.

Personally, while not having the cultural backing, I like some anime; not all of it but I can appricate it for what it is and honestly think things like Cowboy Bebop, Samurai Champloo, Full Metal Alchemist, FLCL, Neon Genesis Evangelion and Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust, to name a few, are great (if not slightly mind busting in the case of the NGE ending) shows and provide a contrast to the other western animation I like such as Futurama, Simpsons and Family Guy.

Is anime 'worse' by it's very nature? Of course not.
Is there bad anime? Well, that's a matter of opinion and I would say yes, but then again there is bad in everything so that's not saying much.

The 'amount of colour' certainly isn't everything, in fact stylised lack of colour can be very powerful aids as well so you certainly can't make the arguement that 'more colour = better'. (For example one of the best sequences in the game WET was when it when into a heavily stylised black, white and red 'attack' mode).

The 'amount of colour' certainly isn't everything, in fact stylised lack of colour can be very powerful aids as well so you certainly can't make the arguement that 'more colour = better'. (For example one of the best sequences in the game WET was when it when into a heavily stylised black, white and red 'attack' mode).

I'm not arguing that more colour = better. I am arguing that any contrast at all = better than no contrast at all. Your example has both color and value contrast, which is why it is visually appealing.

I think the much larger issue was something pointed out earlier, "Any artist capable enough to draw manga should be capable enough to develop their own style." When I look at anime it is all so similar it becomes tiresome after few iterations. Similar things have happened with the generic buff space marine a la Gears of War.

When you look at most Western animation it's rare for two artists to copy each other quite so much. You can pretty easily tell if something is Disney or Pixar or Dreamworks or Warner Brothers. It's pretty easy to tell a Matt Groening from a Seth Macfarlane from a Mike Judge.

When you look at most Western animation it's rare for two artists to copy each other quite so much. You can pretty easily tell if something is Disney or Pixar or Dreamworks or Warner Brothers. It's pretty easy to tell a Matt Groening from a Seth Macfarlane from a Mike Judge.

Watch a film by Makoto Shinkai. Now watch one by Hayao Miyazaki. It's pretty easy to tell the difference.

Incidentally, no one seems to be mentioning the backgrounds. They're often pretty amazing in anime. (I was going to say that Western animation backgrounds are often less good, but I probably haven't watched enough of them recently to justify that opinion).

One thing that did always bug me about a lot of anime is how muddled the colors are. It's almost all single value with a pretty small range of color contrast....

Some animes, such as Naruto, will flip between a vivid palette and a muddled depending on the type of scene. For example, they might use a vivid one for light-hearted scenes, while switching to a muddled one during suspenseful scenes.