Is Avatar Anime? A Video Essay

I believe it is an anime. It has the art style of one rather than a more cartoon style such as Adventure time or spongebob or other examples. Also if you look Pant & Stocking with Garterbelt is a Japanese anime with an "american" cartoon style so if that's considered anime, which most do, the why would Avatar be also?

 

1. I refuse to watch any more Idea Channel until I finish Eva so I can catch up since the "Does it Matter what Eva's Creator Says?" vid.
2. I don't consider Avatar as anime. I am aware that Japanese call cartoons and any form of animation as anime, but there's that whole thing of words having different meanings between countries. I consider Avatar to be an American-made Chinese story with Japanese anime-styled animation. ;P

 

@mafiacow, so lets say studio bones decides to move to the states, or Uk or whatever country you want but still created animated works. Technically any works the created would be whatever country-made, what-ever story the decide, Japanese anime styled animation, by what you said above. Even though it's clearly made my people who have made anime before and are still using the same style. And I haven't watched the video so i probably need to : P

 

so lets say studio bones decides to move to the states, or Uk or whatever country you want but still created animated works. Technically any works the created would be whatever country-made, what-ever story the decide, Japanese anime styled animation, by what you said above. Even though it’s clearly made my people who have made anime before and are still using the same style. And I haven’t watched the video so i probably need to : P

I was more referring to the nationality of the people making it than the country it was made in. And where did I deny my logic is flawed?

 

No where, i just tend to use peoples logic against them. That way they end up seeing a point since it was divvied from what they themselves said. I know a few people who would just plain deny all facts just to keep their point, so as a counter, i use their own points against them. Not saying your one of those people it's just i've had this talk a few times with my friends. One being a purists, and another believing that it was just a cartoon, but has anime qualitys to it

 

I think so. Follows a very resembling animation style like any anime should but with its own uniqueness.

 

I don't consider Avatar to be anime. If style was all that mattered then there are some works in japan that wouldn't be anime. Anime isn't some kind of label of quality or style. It refers to works from Japan and because they are from japan they tend to carry a similar style (With exceptions like Pany and Stockings). Also Avatar doesn't even follow the Anime style exactly and it's more of a mix of styles using some anime style as inspiration.

But again the name Anime is not some kind of label of quality so I don't completely get why it's such a hotly argued debate. Whether or not Avatar is anime it's still good. Are none anime shows just not allowed to be good? Do anime purists refuse to watch anything besides anime? I consider it a cartoon because it's not from japan and it's style takes inspiration from places outside of japan. But even so I still love the show and would rewatch it again.

 

It is Japanese styled animation, but not sure if one could call it an "anime".

 

I think before anyone can answer this question with any kind of clarity they need to understand a bit about the epistemology of language. Language evolved as a means to communicate ideas more easily, and even to this day, it still continues to change as new ideas are introduced that need words to represent them. Often even when there already is a word for something, it may change anyway simply because of the whims of the population. The point I'm trying to get at here is that there really isn't any centralized "authority" on language that just gets to dictate what words can and cannot mean. Even dictionaries are merely reflections of the most common usage of terms and have to be regularly updated to account for changes to our vocabulary; they are not set in stone. This is how multiple different dialects of the same language can form, and how languages may even branch off from each other to form entirely new languages. Many of the existing languages today are in fact branch-offs from Latin.

I point all this out because purists tend to argue from a misguided notion that their definition of anime is somehow the "official" definition, which is wrong on multiple levels. It's wrong by the very nature of how language works, and it's even wrong from the perspective of the word's original meaning, because as Spor already pointed out, in Japan the meaning of the word "anime" refers to all animation, western produced or otherwise, so on what authority do they just get to change that definition and then summarily declare all others as illegitimate? It's fine if you want to argue from a matter of personal perspective that you prefer the purist definition, but you don't get to declare it as the "true" or "official" definition because that doesn't even make sense on any level.

Now back to the question: is Avatar anime? I haven't seen enough of it yet to really judge, but generally speaking I don't preclude western productions from being considered anime. I personally find the distinction by country of origin to be arbitrary. I think it is more meaningful to describe anime as animation that incorporates Japanese techniques, because these are the reasons most fans actually watch the medium; where it came from is largely an irrelevant factor. I want to be clear here: I am not trying to use this definition to imply that just because something is an anime, it must automatically be "good". I am simply pointing out that anime share multiple similar characteristics that are what primarily draw fans to the medium, and these traits are why we felt the need to distinguish them from other animation in the first place, but they do not guarantee the quality of the production necessarily, similar to how people can have a favorite preferred genre even though watching something from that genre does not guarantee they will actually like it. People *generally* like anime because it is different from other animation, hence why it would make sense to define it by those differences. It is the same principle behind the desire to categorize entertainment by genres. And much like the fact that you can cook up an Italian dish without necessarily being Italian, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to draw an anime without necessarily being Japanese.

 

I completely agree. I try to not sound like I think that my definition of anime is official. It's simply the one I choose and when someone asks "Is this anime?" it's the one I intend to use to answer. But even if you use the other definition Avatar's status as anime is questionable as it's not purely the Japanese style. Compare avatar to a lot of other anime and you'll see quite a few differences. The wiki page even describes it as having " combined the styles of anime and American cartoons" (The fact that this is using my definition of anime isn't important). So even if you say anime is in the style and not the origin Avatar is not a purely anime style and thus it's status as "Anime" is still debatable. It also draws on the cultures of China and other Asian countries more than Japan's. So it does not draw from only the Japanese style or culture which is what Anime is mostly known for.

In other words my argument is that Avatar does really count as Anime regardless of which definition you use.

 

I can agree on that. I've only seen bits and pieces of Avatar, but even then while I certainly notice some Japanese influences in the animation, from a stylistic standpoint it's still not really Japanese, hence why I'm not particularly inclined to categorize Avatar as an anime even given my own definition. I would say RWBY is a much better example of a gray area where Japanese style is clearly in full effect.